lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:History of rail transport in Haiti

message: I think this article has been copied and pasted from . Has permission been given? Biscuittin (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created a temporary page at Talk:Rail transport in Haiti/Temp. Biscuittin (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just cite the source, or edit out the copyrighted material. From what I can see, there isn't much.Cliesthenes (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the copyvio tag because the whole of the first part of the article appears to be a copyvio, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2010_January_30 Biscuittin (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The copyright concerns in this article are substantial and they are foundational; there is no version of the article that does not contain them. Moreover, there is a good chance that additional material is copied from other sources. While the mechanical detector I use largely picked up Wikipedia mirrors, it picked up a match to one of the other "sources": "The story of the demise of the railroad is that it was sold and physically picked up, put on ships and sent off to Asia during the Papa Doc period (approx 1957-1971)." The 2001 source says, "The story of the demise of the railroad is that it was sold and physically picked up, put on ships and sent off to Asia during the Papa Doc period." Given that multiple paragraphs can be confirmed to have been copied from one source and there is at least some taking from another, we need to look into the matter more deeply to determine if permission was received and if other sources have also been copied. The creator is still active, but was not notified. I will remedy this so he can provide additional information to clarify. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For reference, problematic material was added here, here (copied from ), and in subsequent edits over the next several days. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyvio 
Talk:List of wars involving the United States

message: The United States invasion of Honduras section does not cite any external sources, and only internally links to the spanish page of José Santos Guardiola, which has a small section on Guerra "Honduro-Estadounidense (1859)", but which does not contains any sources at all. 
I was not able to find any reference or sources talking about this war after half an hour of research. As the page is protected I can not edit it but I would strongly suggest either adding a reference needed tag right now, or if a verified user has a bit more time to verify references can not be found, removing the content entirely.
Xelote (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I was verified after posting this, I removed the section myself, until sources can be found. Xelote (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unsure if my edit was correct in terms of table formatting, could someone more experienced with tables check it? Thanks Xelote (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States invasion of Honduras of 1859 : imaginary war? 

message: The war which occurred from 1785-1795 is oddly not present on this list and I cannot edit it to add it. 92.236.80.105 (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the American-Algerian war not on this list?  

message: Propaganda to say we lost the Iraq war. It was a fight against saddam. The after math is the aftermath. But we won the Iraq war and hung their leader. 50.45.25.163 (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think saying we lost the Iraq war is ignorant.  

message: In WW2, I would like to add Vichy Frances to the Axis belligerents. Wunpun1 (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2024
Talk:Sky brightness

message: The table appears at 
  http://www.ing.iac.es/Astronomy/observing/conditions/skybr/skybr.html
and includes explanatory verbiage that explains things better than the words in the Wikipedia entry  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:FE:19CC:5CAE:C9B6:7B6E (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Night Sky Brightness Table" seems to be copied without attribution 

message: has raised concerns (here) that content in our article may have been copied from an outside source. Many thanks to that editor for keeping an eye out for copyright problems. In this case, though, I am confident that the copying is the other way round. Our article has been very stable since it was created on 1 May 2006, with no large additions of new content; the Study Guide for Galaxies in the Universe was published in 2014. That masterpiece appears to consist wholly of content copied, without acknowledgement or attribution (and thus in violation of our licence), from Wikipedia. I don't think there's any question that they copied their content on sky brightness from our page. I've put a  tag higher up this page. As for the question raised  by  about the table, I can't see any substantial overlap of phrasing with the outside source; if there is any that I've missed, please point it out here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright concerns
Talk:Montagnard Foundation, Inc.

message: Good guy
This is an article about an organisation. It is not a biography. The above tag should be removed. I know it refers to the founder and edits about him should respect the policy on living persons, but the article is not a bio of him. --Bduke 22:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I pretty much thought the same from spotting the talk page in the Biography project's assessment backlog. I removed the banner.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

message: The topic of Montagnards was notable enough to held US Congress hearings.Ans-mo 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: I change the motivation of the group from promoting Montagnard identity in Azerbaijan to promoting Montagnard identity in Vietnam. I assumed this was a mistake as I could find no other reference or source claiming this organization is active in Azerbaijan nor the existence of a distinct community of Montagnard people in Azerbaijan. Justtochangethisonething (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motive
Talk:Enthalpy of atomization

message: Although I'm British, it does seem a bit strange to say in the first line that the American spelling is "wrong". I propose removing it, and will do so unless anyone has an objection?
Benboy00 (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "wrong" spelling 

message: Is there any?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattWhitelock0 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Consider: to calculate both for liquid bromine, you would need to use Br (g) as the product for the former and Br2 (g) as the product for the latter. Double sharp (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between enthalpy of atomisation and enthalpy of vaporisation? 

message: Chemistry Enthalpy Of Neutralization  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.178.139 (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemistry
Talk:Standard enthalpy change of combustion

message: Do the fuels you are burning have to be in their gasesous state?
--
No they do not, and please sign your name with four tildes (~) after you edit a discussion page. 124.182.219.86 10:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: This page covers exactly the same topic as Heat of combustion.  I couldn't find content that needs merging, so I have blanked and redirected the page.  WhiteNebula (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is now a redirect to [[Heat of combustion]]
Talk:Step response

message: This portion of the article is clearly a work in progress, and presently is no more than a "door stop" with a few definitions and absolutely no results, conclusion or commentary. It could be deleted with no loss of content or interest.
Brews ohare (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Formal mathematical section

message: This article is meant to be a discussion of the uses of the step response.  However the article is dominated by the section on Feedback Amplifiers, a topic which can only be considered a specific application, not general discussion.
Should this be split somewhere?  Or just trimmed back a bit, perhaps add a new section on applications of the step response?
Closetsingle (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Feedback Amplifiers 

message: This article evolved to be mostly about second-order systems, which are covered pretty well elsewhere, but here are treated both in unnecessary gory detail and shabbily, omitting for example any mention of "critical damping" which is key to distinguishing the curves where the step response overshoots and those where it doesn't.  It doesn't mention "damping factor" at all except for one non-standard usage, and it uses atypical notation for the variable such as the real and imaginary coordinates of the pole locations.  If it used more normal terms it would connect better to improved images like the one above left.  Anyone up for working on it?  Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major rewrite needed?
Talk:Strain energy density function

message: I've excluded the constitutive equations, because each of them is completely explained inside its own article. Rudolf Hellmuth (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on what "real work" is.  We use the definitions in this article extensively in computational mechanics and visual effects. The general case that this article intends to cover requires a lot of background information.  Some of that can be found on the "See also" Wikiversity page.  I agree that the article needs to be improved. But it hasn't been improved significantly since I wrote the initial drafts some time in 2008.  Also, the definition you have cited is useful only for very simple one-dimensional small strain problems.  I'd suggest that you edit the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strain_energy page to incorporate more information on the structural engineering use case.  Bbanerje (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Exclusion of constitutive models' equations

message: If a physics expert can't be found for this article, it is a topic in materials science/materials engineering undergraduate classes.  Maybe a materials person could be found to contribute.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeldagamer1337 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification of this article

message: What are the units of Strain energy density?
CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units
Talk:Strain tensor

message: The diagram at the start of this section needs to be updated so that the equation for tan(γ) is correct. At present the diagram shows a pure rotation of AB to AB' through an angle of γ and this means that 
:\tan(\gamma/2) =  \frac{\overline{BB'}/2}{\overline{AB}}
but the equation is correct as it stands in the article, so the diagram cannot be correct.
The area A_{rh} of the rhombus diagram is
:A_{rh}=\overline{AB'}^2\times \sin(90-\gamma)
whereas the area of the orginal square A_{sq} is
A_{sq}=\overline{AB}^2
The areas must be the same in order to give pure shear strain. This means that 
\overline{AB}=\overline{AB'}
cannot be true (given pure shear strain).
Also, this page instantly assumes the use of the Cartesian coordinate system.  General vector notation should be used at the start, and then, if we only want to show the Cartesian component derivations, make specific note of it.  
in general, it should be eps = 1/2 ( grad u + transpose grad u).  from there you can do your component derivations in whatever coordinate system desired, and it turns into dui/dxj if you go Cartesian.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.249.10 (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pure shear strain
Talk:Pine Grove Furnace State Park

message: http://www.keystonepolitics.com/story/aroundcapitol/teens-drowning-revives-debate-over-state-park-lifeguards - is this notable for including in the article? Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 04:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is. It is certainly a tragic event and has sparked debate about the decision to remove lifeguards from the parks. Not a wise choice if you ask me. Dincher (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is both tragic and notable here is a better link (more reliable source) Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 14:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drowning 
Talk:Superdiamagnetism

message: Hi people; Shouldn't this be merged or a redirect to the meissner effect? Information in both articles is largely redundant. The meissner effect is more complete. Just a thought.
Cheers everyone,
Pedro Venda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pjvenda (talk • contribs) 13:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge/redirect to meissner effect
Talk:Symbolic dynamics

message: The article does not give anything remotely smacking of a formal definition of symbolic dynamics or a concrete example of its usage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Compsonheir (talk • contribs) 04:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Denver/Archive 2004

message: Would it be appropriate to mention Columbine in this article?
: Is the St. Valentine's Day Massacre mentioned on the Chicago page?  I'd say it's already quite well-covered.
I know it didn't actually happen in Denver but the area was a Denver suburb and the school is identified as in a Denver suburb. WhisperToMe 08:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention Columbine?

message: It's been some years since I was in Denver. When I was growing up the 13th step was said to be a mile high, but I've heard lately this elevation has been tweaked slightly with satellite-based reckoning. Is this still the 13th step?Doovinator 18:20, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mile High Step at the Capitol

message: Which state is depicted? Shouldn't it be shown in the context of the whole of the USA?
Mr. Jones 15:04, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why the article has a link to the article on the state of Colorado.  That article has a map of Colorado in the context of the whole USA.  Onyourside 11:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: But that is an interesting point I hadn't thought of.  A map of Colorado is fairly useless to an international reader.  It wouldn't be a bad idea to have two maps for major U.S. cities: a state map and a national map.  Moncrief 02:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uninformative map
Talk:Striated frogfish

message: Hi! I noticed you were the original author of the Striated frogfish article. I have some decent photos of this species from my dive trip to Indonesia and want to upload and use those images on this article, replacing the drawn picture in the taxobox. I thought I'd run it by you first since you are the original author. I'd think a photo would be better. What do you think?Jnpet 05:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great pix. Envy your trip! I couldn't see any reason why they all shouldn't be displayed so I just moved the lot.  They could be a little bigger, but I suppose Galleries are just large thumbnails.   Cheers & thanks.  ps did you get any other fish snaps on your trip? GrahamBould 16:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Striated frogfish]] 

message: In Antennarius striatus.JPG, the first picture above, there is a large frogfish on the right and... do I see a smaller one on the left? — Epastore 04:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there were two of them sitting right next to each other. Initially I thought it was parent and offspring, but that didn't make sense so it has to be a pair. Not sure which one is male and which one is female though. --Jnpet 14:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, you can see the second smaller one in the third picture as well. --Jnpet 14:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture follow-up 

message: This article was based on the corresponding article at fishbase.org or niwascience.co.naz, neither of which are compatibly licensed for Wikipedia. It has been revised on this date as part of a large-scale project to remove infringement from these sources. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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. (For background on this situation, please see the related administrator's noticeboard discussion and the cleanup task force subpage.) Thank you.  --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Transition radiation

message: It is not mentioned anywhere in the article what ν (greek nu) stands for.
It is a definition made in Jackson as part of the derivation; it is a "normalized frequency": ν=ω/γωp.
This definition should appear somewhere in the article. 132.76.61.52 (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spectrum formula not well explained
Talk:Transmission medium

message: Paradox...Quoting: "However, it is now known that electromagnetic waves do not require a physical transmission medium, and so can travel through the "vacuum" of free space".   If there actually is such a thing as an 'Aether', which pervades everywhere (even a vacuum) how can we say this?  We only know that EM waves travel through an apparently empty space. 160.84.253.241 13:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Return of 'Aether' 

message: Everything in reality has a begining and an end. Therefore the reality is dynamic by being subject to the duality of existence non-existence. It exists, for an observer, when he exists and it non-exists when he non-exists. Therefore the reality is controlled by the observer. Since every member of the reality is such an observer for that reason the reality, as a Whole '1', is subject to that duality. When the reality, as one Whole, non-exists only the Nothingness is left. Nothingness is not the duality of existence non-existence. When the observer non-exists he is identity with the Nothingness. The two are also the identity when the reality fully exists and there is no Nothingness. But separately they are contradiction of each other. The states between the Nothingness '0' and the Whole '1' are imperfect in that they contain parts of each other. This is the spectrum of differences. Only the suality of (0<1), as '1' Whole, is perfect, static and eternal duality of identity contradiction Existence of the duality is continuous so that neither perfect Nothingness '0' nor perfect Whole '1' of the reality, can exist on the inside of (0<1).
                ∞    n
		Σ 1/2 < 1 
	       n=1
The equation above represents organization of the reality within (0<1). When n=1 then 1/2 of the reality exists and it is static for the period of the creation of the other 1/2 which non-exists. Change starts with n=2. The equation confirms that there is no 'beginning' '0' or the 'end' '1'. The internal transformation is unlimited and therefore eternal. No matter how small a part 1/2 to power of 'n' is it is always the image of the above equation because it always consists of the 1/2 to power 'n' and a similar dynamic part which starts with (n+1). No matter in which position 1/2 to power 'n' the observer is located, he always sees the medium in the same way except that his Whole '1' will mean 1/2 to power 'n'. The space (0<1), containing the medium organized in the way shown by the above equation, can in each case accommodate unlimited plurality of variable orgsanizations of limited units. KK (78.149.160.98 (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The basic medium. 

message: Is there something wrong with this sentence? I'm not a native english speaker but it sounds suspiciously weird: "Transmission media then looking at analysis of using them unguided transmission media is data signals that flow through the air." Section: Transmission_medium#Unguided_Media.
82.212.23.176 (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unguided media first sentence
Talk:Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela

message: Destinations??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.4.36 (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Tsallis entropy

message: See main thread at Talk:Tsallis distribution#Tsallis PagesPurple Post-its (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tsallis Pages Expansion 

message: Inspired by this stackexchange discussion, I want to ask: why would I want to use an entropy that is not additive for independent subsystems? It seems that I could get into a big mess because the entropy would depend on how I decided to divide a given system into subsystems (a totally arbitrary choice). It's not clear why the Gibbs entropy needs to be "fixed" in this way. Nanite (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivation for use