lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Milson Island

message: They didnt tell us much about the history. It sounds interesting though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.101.215 (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just went there today 

message: Who put that rubbish on the article page?  Milson Island was not an asylum.  It was part of the hospital 'Peat and Milson' and was for developmentally delayed males, and also for burned out older alcholics who were no trouble.  I used to work on Milson Island.  There was no nurses home on the island when I worked there in the 1970s.  The nurses home which was only for male staff, was on the mainland opposite Peat island.  Milson island was also a TB sanitorium at one point as far as I am aware and for that reason people working there had to be regularly tested for TB and be up to date with their needles.  When Milson Island was part of the Peat and Milson Hospital, the patients used to get a lot of outings etc and really nice food.  They used to work around the island doing maintence jobs etc plus there was also an OT facility where they could work for money.  It was a good place to work and I enjoyed it.  The article page needs to be modified as it is totally a heap of total rubbish.  Its discredits patients who lived at Milson island when they were moslty lovely people who had a disability or two or who were victims of the alcohol industry.  I think at some point after Peat and Milson stopped being a hospital, that the Department Child Welafre had a facility there too, or at least at Peat Island.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.240.62 (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Not An Asylum
Talk:Explorer of the Seas

message: Norovirus outbreaks seem to be a common occurance on cruise ships, and there have been more than one on Explorer.  Look at www.cruisejunkie.com for more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.244.73 (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 
Talk:Vince Welnick

message: The CNN article lists him as 51 years old.  Are we certain of the birth date (February 21, 1951) in the article?  --rogerd 22:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Age?

message: An insider has said he took his life in a way that was too explicitly suicidal for him to be able to relate.  I think that his suicide, the 'how he did it' part is this man's final statement, and I think it belongs here in this article.  68.183.79.51 21:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He slit his own throat and, due to the blood loss, could not be saved in time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:46:1A08:52E3:D0FF:DCA9:1C47:86C5 (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  HOW did he die? 

message: If anybody has read www.vincewelnick.com, they will see two distinct threads in the forum:
A long post written by a person friend of Welnick who claims that the remaining members of The Grateful Dead after Jerry Garcia passed treated Welnick like crap.  He wasn't even invited to perform with The Dead for reunion tours, Welnick actually ended up playing in Grateful Dead cover bands before he died! - http://vincewelnick.com/index.php?module=pnForum&func=viewtopic&topic=315
Also, the journal entry written by Robert Hunter is in the following thread. - http://vincewelnick.com/index.php?module=pnForum&func=viewtopic&topic=435
This article seems rather short for such a current event, especially one that has caused many Dead and Welnick fans such tension.  Perhaps the fan reaction to this event could be incorporated in the article.
Perhaps he offed himself so he'd never have to sing "Samba In the Rain" again? I know I might have killed myself if I ever had to hear it again. ROG 19 18:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why did he kill himself?
Talk:Syracuse Stars (ice hockey)

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure)  Iffy★Chat -- 15:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 14 January 2022
Talk:Political criticism

message: Deletion? But there is art criticism and literary criticism? Ben Tibbetts 02:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion Protestation

message: Can anyone explain how the Bible is political commentary?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.113.0.26 (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bible is political commentary?

message: It should be deleted. Why does it lead off by describing a supposed controversy that is not seriously debated in democratic societies before even discussing the subject of the article? Why does it link to the Effect of Propaganda - political criticism is not propaganda. Why does it link to someone's political blog? The "See also" section makes no sense. The whole thing is incoherent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.57.173 (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost three years later, it still sucks. Rather than do anything about it, I've tagged it as sucking. Perhaps by 2018, things will be better. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible article
Talk:Aeon (disambiguation)

message: * annum (a) - kilo-annum (ka) - mega-annum (Ma) - giga-annum (Ga)
* 109 years - aeon – 106 years - eon – 103 years - millennium – 102 years - century – 101 years - decade – 100 years - year
-------
Dears,
I read many Buddhissm books, they also refer to "aeon" (mostly in relate to Abhidharma). they may refer to "medium aeon" and "great aeon"; however, I did not see any disambigouse here to define or at least to separate the terms.
Please heple me to have it.
thansk
Anon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.187.77 (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Century

message: The picture showing the strict versus the popular way of looking at centuries, shows the popular 1st century, i.e. the first 100 years, as consisting of the years 1 - 99. Madyno (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the "popular" way counts centuries as starting from years ending in a zero, but a "Year Zero" does not exist in the A.D. year-numbering system. There are similar anomalies with "popular" decades and "popular" millennia. --Blurryman (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

text: For clarity in the "Strict vs Popular" table,  could the negative years be extended to include at least one example century like "|102 BC|101 BC|100 BC|99 BC| ... |2 BC|1 BC|" with the appropriate Century Divisions represented also? And does this imply that two years are missing from this convention - the year of twelve months from year 0 to year 1 AND the year of twelve months from year 0 to year -1? SquashEngineer (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

text: I guess a larger topic could also address the change throughout the article of using the more generic terms of BCE and CE as opposed to BC and AD ? SquashEngineer (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strict versus popular 

message: 01259 103.171.69.83 (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  1250 

message: Now time for .. 
штамповать часы показывающие века и тысячелетия.
P.S. Живём как Микробы или Галактики. Жутко интересно. Очень .. 176.59.208.240 (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry ..
Talk:Cividade de Terroso

message: Hi. I may need to read the article a bit deeper, but I see that there are dispirate uses of the word "castro" here. Some seem to refer to the Castro people. Some seem to use it to mean "town" (when lowercase) - is that a translation artifact? Dictionary.com does not list this as a definition for "castro". An explanatory sentence, or corrections, would be a great help for the article. Thanks. --NightMonkey 20:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Castro, castro and The Castro 
Talk:Jane Colden

message: I was among those who believed that Jane Colden died in 1766 but I recently became aware of her death notice having been recorded in the NY Mercury in 1760.  I will get the actual date.  Authors Sara Stidstone Gronim (What Jane Knew) and Paula Ivaska Robbins (she will soon publish a bio on Jane) have enlightened us in this regard.  If no editor objects, I will edit the death date.
There are several events for Jane that are planned here where she lived.  I can separately share those.  JosephDevine (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jane Colden's Death Date 

message: This article was edited as part of the Zoological Society of London Edit-a-Thon . 
The editor who attended the event may be a new editor. In an effort to support new editors, please assume good faith to their contributions before making changes. Thank you! PatHadley (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article was edited as part of an edit-a-thon 

message: A description of her technique for creating ink impressions of leaves would be a great addition on this page.  Pictures of these impressions, some or her drawings, and of Coptis groenlandica would be excellent.
Jomoakin (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures and technique for ink impressions 

message: I will be working on this page for a class at my university and I am leaving the urls of references that I may use.
:http://books.google.com/books?id=oPGJZ7e06PQC&pg=PA95&dq=jane+colden+biography&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UEQBU836OOqGyAHX9YHgAg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=jane%20colden%20biography&f=false
:http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.ou.edu/stable/2443778?seq=2&Search=yes&searchText=jane&searchText=colden&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Djane%2Bcolden%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff&prevSearch=&resultsServiceName=null
:http://books.google.com/books?id=BdFuHC3DhwAC&pg=PA160&dq=jane+colden+biography&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-EQBU-XTMoKiyAHPpoGYCQ&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=jane%20colden%20biography&f=false
:http://arnoldia.arboretum.harvard.edu/pdf/articles/936.pdf
--Apollo721 (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography for future edits 

message: I found the added sections, pictures, references, and mentioning other prominent botanists great improvements to the article. You did a great job, perhaps the introduction is a little weak even with the additions made.
Jomoakin (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review for Apollo721
Talk:Google Directory

message: This directory doesn't appear to be updated very often, I'll put stats here for those who wish to follow them.
Site added to dmoz: April 3rd, 2006. Nineteen sites showing in dmoz, eighteen in google.
As of June 2, 2005, Fourteen sites in dmoz, same eighteen showing in google, so that means that section hasn't been updated for two months now.
Will report back if and when site finally updates on Google proper.
Update: 7/11/2006
Google Directory still not updated. Showing 18 sites there when there are 14 in DMOZ.
Update: 8/17/2006
Google Directory still not updated. Still shows 18 sites, still 14 in DMOZ. 
Zola 22:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates
Talk:Killer instinct (human behaviour)

message: This article is worthless unless someone staes a source. There isn't even a proper dictionary definition of the term, which would be a start. The entire thing is opinion, and doesn't even make much sense.202.82.171.186 (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite a Source

message: This article needs more PAZAZ! More Pazaz, please.
U R A GR8 M8 17:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: THIS ARTICLE

message: I removed this sentence from the article:
"As a programmed response, soldiers are trained to kill others without regard or remorse, as a reflex action triggered by those not wearing your uniform."
This does not have any sources and does not say which soldiers this is about. The statement is wrong on so many levels, and completely unfounded.
Alexander256 02:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Statement

message: I think there is enough material out there for sections on this subject. There are at least 2, if not 3 applicable areas of this subject in the sociological area, animal origin notwithstanding. I propose a) a general introduction to the subject, b) a categorizing and differentiating between 1) primal instinct and 2) trained behavior in the sub-categories of civil, private life, business life and military training. If anyone would be so kind to add some self-written material from the sociological history of this term, all the better. TrondBK 23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: Is this made up?  Original Research?  Is there any necessary correlation between bloodlust and this?  If killer instinct equals simple bloodlust, it should probably be moved, and if not (cold steely rational determination), then this doesn't belong.
This instinct can either be a natural inclination, or a programmed response. In the case of inclination, one feels the inner need or desire to harm or kill another for no apparent reason (otherwise perfectly calm and lucid). 
Killer instinct is a euphemism for ruthlessness.  
Bloodlust is a desire for violence, and carnage.
A berserk, animal instinct, state of mind that causes one to gain pleasure in battle. Seen by some primitive societies as if possessed by a God of War. In Papua New Guinea warriors used to kill and then cannibalize the corpses of their enemies. This would supposedly further strengthen the warrior. However, scientifically the effect is psychosomatic and only furthers the warrior's descent into madness.
Very similar to a person that is under the influence of the drug PCP.
Moved this here as it does not belong in artile space.--KTo288 (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment hidden in article space
Talk:Bavaria S.A.

message: Wasn't the company taken over from a German company?
please add pictures to this article, and add extra detail neccesary
I've corrected some minor misspellings, such as Cervecería for the wrong-spelled Cervesería, just as like minor misspellings in brewery, when and Cerveza.--Pietro GP 20:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:U.S. Route 60/62 in Illinois

message: Hmmm... I don't know for sure that it entered Illinois after the Mississippi River Bridge opened - it may have continued to use the ferry until the Ohio River Bridge opened, but that's rather doubtful, given that US 51 had to use an Ohio River ferry. --SPUI (T - C) 05:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind - hell yeah. --SPUI (T - C) 05:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Note: this discussion was moved from WT:USRD
I have put merge tags up for this article, discuss here.Mitch/HC32 19:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Links please?Dave (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the header. 0.92 of a mile ain't that worthy.Mitch/HC32 19:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

text: If you want the discussion to take place here, you might want to fix the merge templates, as they point the discussion to 2 different pages. For the record, Merge why does this article exist?Dave (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I put two on purpose, as it is two separate highways on a concurrency.Mitch/HC32 21:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the highway's short length in Illinois, I would suggest the information in this article be merged into the US 60 and US 62 articles. The problem is, where should "U.S. Route 60/62 in Illinois" be redirected to? Dough4872 (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I'd say just pick one, let's go with U.S. Route 60. IMO it doesn't really matter as this is such an unlikely search term. Even if someone did search for this more than likely they would still find the right pages in the results.Dave (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Something that could work would be to have all the Illinois-specific US 60 redirects point to US 60 and all the Illinois-specific US 62 redirects point to US 62. Meanwhile, the US 60-62 redirects could continue to redirect to U.S. Route 60/62 in Illinois, which would become a disambiguation page as Rschen suggested with links to the US 60 and US 62 articles. Dough4872 (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this idea is feasible. – TMF 20:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it okay if I undertake it? Dough4872 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go ahead and do it. – TMF 00:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Dough4872 (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge
Talk:Johnny Rutherford

message: I am seeing that it list Johnny Rutherford's Birthplace as being in 2 cities. 1. Coffeyville, Kansas and 2. Fort Worth, Texas. From what I did search on google about him is that His Brithplace was indeed Coffeyville, Kansas and his current residence (Home Town) is Fort Worth, Texas. The sources that I saw on google were not what I say was reliable and can't be quoted. Sawblade05 06:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthplace Confliction 
Talk:North West Counties Football League

message: I have added the official logo of NWFL. This somewhat improves the quality of the article. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added image

message: Should there be an update to this page? Clubs have been promoted and demoted since the end of last season.
:Eh? Looks OK to me. - fchd 20:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update?
Talk:Fanny Davenport

message: The photograph represented as Fanny Davenport is actually of the American actress and singer, Della Fox  (1871-1913).
:I've created an article about Della Fox and have added pictures - the one in this article claiming to be Davenport doesn't look at all like Fox. -- kosboot (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:List of highest-grossing films throughout history

message: You've got to admit that that's one klunky title for a page though.  Jesterjester 03:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  title 

message: It strikes me this article is both unnecessary and badly written. For a start, the information in it should surely be in List of highest-grossing films, as the title of this article is the same as far as meaning is concerned. Even if the article stays here, it badly needs correcting. The opening paragraph does not clearly explain the difference between this article and the list of highest-grossing films or what the table shows. The list is said to be 'Unadjusted', but does not explain what is unadjusted (I am assuming it is talking about inflation, but it could be anything). Even the list itself is inherently wrong! The 1921 film The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse is recorded as having a lower gross than the 1915 film The Birth of a Nation meaning it should not be on the list at all, and the same is true of Gone with the Wind and The Godfather (1939 and 1972 respectively). If this article stays (and I don't think it should) it definitely needs work. The page isn't even linked from the main text of any other page, which shows how worthless it is! --Tim (talk), (contribs) 23:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems in this article 

message: I merged this article with the List of highest-grossing films.  I put it in its own section like "Record holding highest-grossing films over time" and literally copied and pasted in.  I think this information is important, but I agree that the previous title was confusing and not easily distinguishable from the other article.  Check out what I've done, and see if you like it. Portia1780 (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article redirect
Talk:Dennis Waterman (Little Britain)

message: Perhaps the article should mention that Dennis Waterman sang the theme tune of Minder and New Tricks as well as starring in both of these. Did he write either of these theme tunes? Does New Tricks antedate the Little Britain character? If not, this would be worth mentioning too (as if Waterman's singing of the theme tune to that programme could be considered a response to the character). — Paul G 15:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parody of Dennis Waterman
Talk:List of Christian movements

message: These definitions differ in weight and sophistication:
# Christian left: those who hold a strong Christian belief and share left-wing or liberal ideals.
# Christian right: encompasses a spectrum of conservative Christian political and social movements and organizations characterized by their strong support of social values they deem traditional in the United States and other western countries.
maryann 23:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Check

message: Is there a real reason for giving some movements identical entries on more than one list? AnonMoos 23:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplications

message: I've spotted two entries that reflect what I believe to be errors. First the entry on "creationism" confines this movement to a belief in six day creation. Age-day creationists, Framework theorists, and Gap theorists (not prominent any more) all insist they are creationists, but reject the idea of a literal, six day creation. Some of the leading, contemporary creationists, such as Hugh Ross, differ quite vocally with the literal day theorists. Thus, the article is inaccuarate at this point. Also, the editor who says New Thought began with Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) seems to be advocating an unsourced, novel idea which does not belong in a reference work. New Thought's origins and development is more complex than I can address on a talk page, but most historians recognize an earlier origin than Christian Science and believe Christian Science was never part of the New Thought Movement. In spite of its many similarities to New Thought, there are sufficient differences to cause mind science practitioners to consider them part of different schools, and I would be interested to read any scholarly accounts which consider the Church of Christ, Scientist to be part of New Thought.  One could argue that Unity, under Quimby's influence, represents something akin to an origin for New Thought even though Unity never joined the New Thought Alliance. If no one objects to my comments I wil come back soon and correct these entries.Will3935 04:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Errors

message: Noticed that the last bit of the section on the "Quiverfull" movement read "Full of crazies."  Much as I agree with the writer's analysis of the Quiverfulls, we need to keep a NPOV on this article.  Please refrain from injecting your own opinions into the article; it needs to stay objective.  Remember, this is an encyclopedia page, so it's no place for polemics. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on POV
Talk:Current sources and sinks

message: This page seems exceedingly obscure. Am I missing something? Raidfibre
If I could understand the explanation on this page, then I doubt I would have ended up here.  It would be helpful if someone could "dumb it down" a bit for us laymen. Jerryjjr (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this is a horrible article.  The problem is it was obviously written by a neurologist or medical student who has never taken an electromagnetics course and is trying to define the concepts using what he learned in electrophysiology courses.  His vague analogies, drawings of eyeballs and "visible" and "invisible" boxes show that he never bothered to actually look up the physics.  Current sources and sinks are concepts which are precisely defined in electromagnetics, and any 2nd year physics or electrical engineering student could straighten this article out (after he got done laughing at it).  When I get time, if nobody else has I will take a crack at it.  --ChetvornoTALK 23:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)