lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

message: This quote, "After registration, the vet is entitled to use the letters MRCVS (Member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons) or FRCVS (Fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons) after their name," appears to be very misleading. Here is the link which explains it. If my understanding is correct, not just anyone who registers can use FRCVS. In fact, it sounds as though it's rather difficult to obtain that title. Would anyone else agree that the above sentence is actually wrong the way it is worded?  MagnoliaSouth (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification? 

message: Someone has told me that molecular iodine can help to shrink my female dog’s tumour in her tummy is this correct Russell strickland (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iodine
Talk:Cochrane, Alberta

message: Cochrane is Alberta's largest town with a population of 12,688?? Lets check the facts. Okotoks is also a town and has a population close to 17,000. BC 06:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the 2005 municipal census (2005 census), Okotoks has 11,664 residents, while Cochrane has 12,688. I don't know where the 17,000 figure comes from. --Qyd 15:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The population of 16,500 is on the Town of Okotoks' website. A response from a town official mentions that "16,500 was derived last year (2006) using the density ratios multiplied by the number of residential dwelling units that are occupied. We know from the 2001 census (and this may be dated) that on average we have 2.78 people per household. Therefore based on todays numbers using a 2001 ratio we could already be around 18,000 in population although we have not yet had a chance to verify that". BC 23:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alberta's largest town? 

message: Since the council is elected every three years on the third Monday of October, the current council listing could be outdated, depending on when the election results go into effect. -- Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 election 

message: Does someone know how to easily revert all edits by Alxel123? He appears to be merely adding garbage... Mikewarren (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 
Talk:Saltation (geology)

message: The orginal Saltation article was focussed on fluid transport in the field of Fluid dynamics-(stream flow). My  original meeting with saltation was in sand-dune, and sand, (but see also loess), and later I saw the process used in analyzing river bottom movements of the "River load", the transport of particles downstream (which can end up: upstream in eddies, etc.)-
However, I still contend the "process" of saltation is a more important concept when used with time and the "rate-of-change" that occurs. To pick a geoligic time: "hundreds of years" or "thousands of years", is a statement that is 'unknowable'.  I would assume with the speciation, and the overabundance of off-spring, -(the conclusion has to be): "Generations are Shortened!"--under some environmental conditions, I would err on the side, of more rapid 'Geologically-bsed' changes, as opposed to the extended: "thousands of years"; it may apply to some mammals, but I think the time frames, have to be shortened..[And....I do think this goes towards understanding the positions taken on the Punctuated equilibrium discussion-](I think some species come along so fast, one doesn't see them coming..)  ... Just some thoughts--at... "part-of-1-year" after the original article was split.  //--From the Arizona-Desert--Mmcannis 20:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Saltation: 1-a [[geophysics]] process(+biology); 2-a concept

message: I added much of the original content on this page. FWIW, fluid dynamics is not the same as stream flow. The expression fluid dynamics refers to the dynamics of a fluid in an engineering sense, where air is as much a fluid as water.
Anyway, is it worth starting a page on transport of particles by fluids?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.207.115.25 (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  fluid dynamics 
Talk:2 Stupid Dogs

message: Hello, today I would like to propose the merger of List of 2 Stupid Dogs episodes with the main article at 2 Stupid Dogs. With only 26 episodes (none that are noteworthy in their own right), the episode list doesn't stand well on its own. The list article fails the MOS:TVPLOT criteria for existing as a stand-alone list, and the main article isn't large enough to warrant a split anyway. I feel like these two could comfortably be merged into one, but I would like to get a consensus before doing so.  — Paper Luigi T • C 01:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging episode list into main article
Talk:Waldi

message: Wikipedia:RS#Self-published and questionable sources states that experts who have been previously published by reliable third-party publications can be acceptable. Under that criteria, I have used Meet the Mascots: Waldi (Munich 1972), as the writer, Kyle Whelliston, has previously been published on EPSN.com and in the Basketball Times and also has a lifetime membership to the International Society of Olympic Historians. Miyagawa (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on source
Talk:Read Bridge

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Victor R Savage, Brenda S A Yeoh (2004), Toponymics - A Study of Singapore Street Names, Eastern University Press. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 11:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Ophir Road

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Victor R Savage, Brenda S A Yeoh (2004), Toponymics - A Study of Singapore Street Names, Eastern University Press. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 11:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Licensee

message: Why not just copy the definition from Black's or something instead of having an answer that is only 1/2 right.  There are many incorrect generalizations here.  I tried to clean it up a little, but it really needs more work.  It should probably be replaced.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.192.44.25 (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

message: First, the status of the visitor as trespasser, invitee, and licensee has been overturned, at least in some states.  Rowland v. Christian (1968 in California) pretty much did away with using these categories as determinative of the duty of care, at least in California.  Other states have followed suit to a large extent.  A good source on this is "Tort Stories" by Rabin and Sugarman, although I don't have time to fix this.  However, I believe that the status of the visitor may often have some impact on the duty of care - it's just that cases like Rowland said that they are not completely determinative.
Second, I'm pretty sure that even in the old way of doing things, the highest duty of care was given to licensees, not invitees.  I am pretty sure that social guests, for example, don't have to be warned of noticeable defects.  Even in terms of hidden defects, it's unclear.  The Restatement Second of Torts in 1965 provided for a broad definition of hidden defects, but for example, CA at the time of Rowland hadn't adopted it, and it had a very narrow definition of hidden defects (a typical example being a loaded spring gun).
Third, trespassers have often been given more rights than one might think the laws would provide.  Often landowners can be found liable for trespassers hurting themselves in some jurisdictions, with other jurisdictions not wanting to allow people to collect damages arising from wrongful action in the first place.
This article should be fully deleted or cleaned up.
Borntostorm 20:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think a lot of this is wrong 
Talk:Teo Hong Road

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Victor R Savage, Brenda S A Yeoh (2004), Toponymics - A Study of Singapore Street Names. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 11:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Bidadari Cemetery

message: It has been suggested that the page be merged with Former cemeteries in Singapore. However, I feel the subject of the article is notable enough to have its own page. Instead of merging, I would suggest to add more information about the Bidadari cemetery. In particular the history section could be expanded. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested merge with Former cemeteries in Singapore 
Talk:Bowen Basin

message: The viewers can probably imagine Bowen Basin somewhere in the middle part of that Queensland-shaped area. Aboctok (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Helpful Map
Talk:2007 AFF Championship

message: Does anybody knows the result of the match Eat Timor vs. Cambodia? There are no informations about this in WWW until now. --J. Patrick Fischer 21:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it today. ;-) --J. Patrick Fischer 09:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Timor vs. Cambodia 

message: Does anyone have a link to the tournament's rules and regulations, such as the tie-breaking criteria which will be useful to put here?
Kiwi8 11:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tournament rules 

message: Should this article be named 2006 ASEAN Football Championship? It shows in the official as 2006 not 2007. Plese see http://www.aseanfootball.org/competitions_012006.asp --Manop - TH 04:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was supposedly held in between the Southeast Asian Games (odd-numbered years), but since the final tournament began on 2007, it was named as "2007 ASEAN...", and ESPN Star Sports and other press say its the 2007 edition. Perhaps on 2008 they'll revert to the even-numbered years. --Howard the Duck 13:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I do agree that that tounament should be refered to as 2006 rather than 2007, as the official source should take precedence over what the press uses.--Huaiwei 16:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if we'll use the official sources, it should be ASEAN Football Championship 2006. (2006 is after "ASEAN Football Championship")--Howard the Duck 06:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 ASEAN Football Championship 

message: I've added some info regarding the above, but am still missing some data in certain matches. If someone can add this missing info onto the article this would be most welcome. Gaijin84 03:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Attendance and Referee data 
Talk:Pierre Png

message: There is a current RFC on certain content in Singapore artistes BLP articles that editors watching/editing/passing through this article may be interested in weighing in: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Content in Notes column of filmography tables in Singapore artistes BLPs. This article may be affected due to the inclusion of :Category:Singaporean actors‎ and/or one of its subcategories in the article. RobertskySemi (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC on content in Notes column of filmography tables in Singapore artistes BLPs
Talk:Richard Low

message: There is a current RFC on certain content in Singapore artistes BLP articles that editors watching/editing/passing through this article may be interested in weighing in: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Content in Notes column of filmography tables in Singapore artistes BLPs. This article may be affected due to the inclusion of :Category:Singaporean actors‎ and/or one of its subcategories in the article. RobertskySemi (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC on content in Notes column of filmography tables in Singapore artistes BLPs
Talk:Gauss–Matuyama reversal

message: Who doubts the effect of the influx of solar radiation during the magnetic transition on the genetic/evolutionary trends of a variety of species, including hominids? This article could tell an interesting story (I wish I was good enough to do it). Xaxafrad 21:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Details

message: I doubt that it's possible to date the Gauss-Matuyama Boundary with luminescence dating. Upper limits for this method are usually 100-200 ka to 300-800 ka (TT-OSL). None of the referenced sources 4, 6 and 7 seem to mention luminescence dating at all. 157.211.229.158 (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luminescence Dating
Talk:Robert Yeo

message: I have removed the SG ratings on this article as Stub class and low importance.  On what basis were these ratings awarded?  How is it that this article got such ratings when the article on Goh Sin Tub created by Ryan D got a start class and mid importance rating?Ivygohnair 12:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think it is fruitless to engage in further polemics regarding the subjective ratings of certain established Singaporean poets/writers.  However those who stumble upon the talk pages of these poets/writers rated so poorly by the so-called "SGpedians" may wish to know that, thanks to an article which appeared in the Digital Life Section of the Singapore Straits Times, January 30, 2007, we now know that they are a group of school children.
There is absolutely nothing wrong in Teenagers contributing to Wikipedia; in fact they probably play an important role in keeping Wikipedia alive.  However we have to put things in their proper perspective: How mature and responsible are we when we are 15 or 16 years old?
And of Wikipedia, one can only sigh and say "that's the nature of the beast!".Ivygohnair 19:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings by SGpedians
Talk:Shōtengai

message: Is this anything more than a diction definition, that should be merged with commercial district? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not a simple commercial district. This area usually used as both commercial zone and living zone. See article in Japanese wiki. Laitr Keiows (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dict def? 

message: It's nice to know what a shotengai is. However it would be nice to know more about them? Does this style of commercial district date back to the Edo Period? How are shotengais faring with the changing times of major outlets and Western-style shopping malls? Who goes to a shotengai? Do any major events happen there?210.133.127.14 (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More?
Talk:Disney's Fort Wilderness Resort & Campground

message: The article links to the Hoop Dee Doo Musical Review page which just directs back here. Is there any way to see the history of that page to see if there's any information from there that would be useful here? The HDDMR is 40 years old as of today and has had at least one notable hiccup in its time, where Disney lost the rights to the Hoop Dee Doo Waltz. 173.166.109.49 (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

message: I believe the horse ranch has been moved to the front of the resort near the parking lot, and is no longer near the beach. Can anyone confirm?
 Jnmwiki (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tri Circle D Ranch
Talk:Disney's Port Orleans Resort

message: I think this article should be split into two pages because it is really about 2 different resorts. The 2 articles would be "Port Orleans French Quarter' and Port Orleans Riverside" Am I allowed to and if so how? Myunknownside000 13:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are currently considered by WDW as one resort with separate facilities --Napnet 19:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes it there is a referable source--Napnet 23:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Disney's Coronado Springs Resort

message: User:Mean as custard tagged this article as an advertisement last year, and based on the other pages about the Disney resorts, it doesn't seem that way to me. Appears neutral and matter-of-fact to me.
Further, User:Mean as custard has a spotty contribution history. That doesn't disqualify his/her opinion, but perhaps it should be considered as well.
Dave (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this an advertisement? 

message: The Gran Destino hotel tower and restaurant in the middle of the lake are open as of July 2019  --Msr69er (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please update this article since hotel tower is now open
Talk:Cantonment Road, Singapore

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Toponymics - A Study of Singapore Street Names. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 06:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Phyllis Quek

message: There is a current RFC on certain content in Singapore artistes BLP articles that editors watching/editing/passing through this article may be interested in weighing in: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Content in Notes column of filmography tables in Singapore artistes BLPs. This article may be affected due to the inclusion of :Category:Singaporean actors‎ and/or one of its subcategories in the article. RobertskySemi (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC on content in Notes column of filmography tables in Singapore artistes BLPs
Talk:U.S. Route 22 in Pennsylvania

message: I frequently drive on the Colonial Park interchange of  /  I-83/US 322 with  US 22.  It's an interchange with  I-83 yes, but it is far from any kind of exit on  US 22 like it is in North Harrisburg when it begins its concurrency with  US 322.  
As much as I'd like to make any changes (at this moment), I'm posting this up to see if anyone would want to remove the  I-83 interchange from the ELG, because it is far from an exit.  It's more akin to Exit 77 of  I-81 with  PA 39.  
--myselfalso 03:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave it there for now, as I'm planning to make the table one junction list/exit list together in the future, thanks for the reminder though. -- JA10 T · C 01:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colonial Park 

message: See discussion page for I-78 (Pennsylvania) regarding I-78 / US 22 concurrency.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longer version of Lehigh Valley Thruway? 

message: ;removed the sentence: From New Florence through most of Ebensburg, US 22 is an expressway with the remaining portion from Ebensburg to Cross Creek operating as a limited-access freeway.
Which appears to mangle the language with some attempt to say something about the physical road types, while as the expression goes, burying the lead--losing the narrative sense and understandability by jamming too much into too few a number of sentences. This comment and judgement is my general take on most of these route describing articles... they simply try to be too terse and need expanded to be English and not Goobley-gook. In any event, the specific problem I commented around is because
New Florence and Cross Creek are miles away from the 'subject highway' as found on Google earth. // FrankB 16:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  These mentions make no sense