lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Plasma diagnostics

message: This is an article, mainly interesting for scientists.
However, there are no references. Thus, this article is nearly useless. --134.245.68.53 (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

message: In my opinion this article is crude compilation of diagnostic methods. It seems to have only one purpose, it is a container to advertise the "ball-pen probe"  (BPP). The  BPP is only marginally used plasma diagnostic compared to other methods like emissive probes, double probes etc. In addition, the BPP is a special variant of much broader class of probes. The article misses references, the impression is created that this kind of probe is the sole invention of Mr. Adámek.
In my opinion the whole article should be removed, because for all mentioned methods wikipedia articles exist. The current article  creates a strange focus on some very special methods.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.marioli (talk • contribs) 17:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crude  compilation of  diagnostic methods
Talk:Eczacıbaşı Dynavit

message: Apart of the abuse of MOS:Bold and other specs, this article needs more prose. There is a lot of awards without proper references. There should be a lead section, the history, and so on. A lot of works is needed in this article. Osplace 18:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: MOS
Talk:Plasma speaker

message: "Plasma speakers (not to be confused with flame speakers"
Then why does 'flame speakers' redirect here? --173.168.193.243 (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I did the re-write the template suggested; the distinction you bring up may be better made now.  Hilarleo Hey,L.E.O. 11:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect redirect?  

message: I wanted to update reference link #2 to: http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/27/cool-people-play-their-music-with-an-electric-plasma-spark-not-a-normal-speaker/ since it is more relevant to the section that references it. Unfortunately I don't know how to update the reflist so would appreciate some help. Dzstoyanov (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update to references 
Talk:Plasma stability

message: In the current version of this article, nearly all of the focus is on plasma stability in laboratory plasmas.  From that perspective, the article is in very good shape.  However, one thing that would greatly help the article would be to include plasma instabilities in different environments.  For example, plasma instabilities play a very important role during solar eruptions and in accretion disks during star formation.  Additionally, the mode number decomposition makes sense in periodic plasmas such as those in a torus, but they are not as widely used or applicable in astrophysics (with some exceptions such as accretion disks and jets).  It would be helpful to broaden the focus and have separate sections to discuss instabilities that occur in different environments.  Spacehippy (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Including instabilities in solar, astrophysical, and space plasmas

message: > MHD theory is the simplest representation of a plasma, so MHD stability is a necessity for stable devices to be used for nuclear fusion, specifically magnetic fusion energy. [...] There are also rare cases of systems, e.g. the Field-Reversed Configuration, predicted by MHD to be unstable, but which are observed to be stable, probably due to kinetic effects.
That figures, because the "simplest representation of a plasma" seems like a loosy-goosy way of talking about it. MHD was an approximation if i remember correctly?88.159.74.173 (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal contradiction 

message: high-confinement mode (H-mode) Should be in this article or tokamak ?  Not covered anywhere in WP ! - Rod57 (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of high-confinement mode (H-mode)
Talk:Plasma torch

message: * This page has many incoming links. Some sort of page is needed here in Wikipedia. If you copy it to Wiktionary, please also leave it here. This sort of thing happened with page Vial. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transwiki? 

message: The externally hosted image is of marginal quality, is not freely licensed, and gives little useful context. I'm curious about the reasons for including a link to it when there are a number of much better images on Commons. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 00:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the image, since there were no objections. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why didn't you replace it with one of these "better images"? Perhaps you can suggest one. The image was from a scientific journal. Rudolfensis (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You've written almost the whole article. You should pick the image. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did, but you deleted it ;) Your move ;D Rudolfensis (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  External image
Talk:Pleomorphism (microbiology)

message: It's the same root as pleiotropy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.70.41 (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed project. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Isn't the correct name pleiomorphism, with an "i"???

message: Some scientists that proved pleomorphism correct were Emmy Klieneberger-Nobel and Lida Holmes Mattman. Also have a look at L-form bacteria, please. 178.197.224.39 (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing work of Emmy Nobel and Lida Mattman
Talk:Dark-eyed junco

message: This article is missing something important!
172.10.237.153 (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add diet 

message: Friends of all those birds are you sure? An anonymous person add a statement that this bird eats its own dropping?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dark-eyed_Junco&diff=51101231&oldid=47664923
84.60.143.20 12:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old talk 

message: The map image is obviously a distribution map of some kind but what do the different colors mean?  Is it color coded by intensity of range, different junco species, seasons ...?  Please add this info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.113.167.160 (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the things that the WikiProject Birds guidelines specify is that on range/distribution maps, blue should be used to represent the winter-only range of the species, yellow for summer-only, and green for year-round areas. If I had diverted from those guidelines I would have added a legend to the map, but I think that as long as the map is using an accepted standard a legend would just clutter it up - especially when most people just look at the thumbnail. If the reader is confused about the what the colors mean, they can always click on the map and I've added an explanation of the colors to the image's description. 'Card 20:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key for map needed 

message: While we usually don't make a fuss about this, isn't it odd to use "grey" consistently in an article about a North American bird?  All our field guides use "gray".  -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 21:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gray versus grey 
Talk:Billa (1980 film)

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :My Name is Billa and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 16#My Name is Billa until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Ab207 (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "My Name is Billa" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Potential energy surface

message: The article diverges. It starts with chemistry and nuclear physics, diverges to topography, topology, then maps, then Morse, then doesn't come back to chemistry and nuclear physics by providing any clearer picture. Thereafter it jumps out to implications and speculations without reattaching to that missing clearer picture. The article looks like someones personal notes, and needs some mathematically minded person's eyes in order to be readable. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 10:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, eh... such as "low topological position" counterparts "low energy" (in general, potential, nuclear, or otherwise). An image might also be helpful. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 10:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Problematic

message: In the first sentence it is implied that the "adiabatic" approximation is equivalent to the "born-oppenheimer" approximation. This is not accurate. 
To the best of my knowledge:
Adiabatic: neglection of the nuclear kinetic energy from the hamiltonian.
Born-Oppenheimer: complete neglection of the nuclear-electron motion coupling terms from the molecular hamiltonian.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.196.213.182 (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Imprecision in the text

message: The two concepts of Energy landscape -> Potential energy surface are very similar. The main difference seems to be the community using the term (landscape being mostly used by the biochem end of thing, and surface beig used by the physicists). Would it make sencce to merge them and then clarify the different use cases in an application section or is there a relevant distinction that I've missed? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 08:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Klbrain (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge suggestion: [[Energy landscape]] -> [[Potential energy surface]]
Talk:Dickcissel

message: We should change the third image; it is too small to meet Wikipedia's image standards.
VarikValefor (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  third image
Talk:Potential theory

message: I made a slight addition to clarify that the Laplcae equation is still used in science. It is perhaps not phrased in the most artful manner but I thought it important to dispel any impression that advances in physics has made the Laplace equation obsolete., an impression that you might get from reading the first paragraph. 
I have suggested a merger with [harmonic function] in that discussion page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.231.115 (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some notes 

message: Can someone add information about probabilistic potential theory to this article? Kaldari (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probabilistic potential theory 

message: I have great hopes for this article. But at present it is 100% useless, in that anyone who doesn't know what potential theory is and who tries to learn what it is by reading the article will come away knowing even less than when they began.
How about one example of a concrete theorem in potential theory?  One example of a concrete calculation? One example of a concrete question that potential theory seeks to answer?  And yes, the word "concrete" is essential.2600:1700:E1C0:F340:BC15:5C36:8F31:B21E (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We have articles that are inaccurate, biased, poorly written, or just plain rubbish. That comes with our ambitious goals, and the way we work. And on many of these articles, we do actually have cleanup signs! Editors work to gradually improve articles that are incomplete or need editing, and at the end of the day, Wikipedia will be of a higher quality than the day before, though we will likely never have a perfect encyclopedia. You are, of course, free to be bold and contribute to alleviate your concerns on this article instead of simply rejecting its value. Wikipedia is, after all, a collaboration! Cheers, Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 01:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, the cited EoM article contains more concrete content. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely useless article 

message: The attribution to planetmath is broken. The correct link should be https://planetmath.org/potentialtheory but I don't know how to edit this link that seems to be automatically generated. --Das O2 (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link broken 

message: I could have just replied to a section above.
But I am starting a new section because it is still true that this article contains zero useful information. 
I still hope someone knowledgeable about potential theory can improve this article at least to the point that it is passable. 2601:200:C000:1A0:8CCD:BE6:81B5:7F9 (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely useless article
Talk:Violent Is the Word for Curly

message: Just thought everyone should know: Space and time are not calculated by any meaningless relationship between interplanetary magnetism and solar radation. They are calculated instead in a four-dimensional Minkowski manifold. XD
Sanderling 04:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how I've survived all my life without knowing that... (grin)StanislavJ 23:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Calculation of space and time

message: Regarding edits of 11/9/07 and 11/10/07: FWIW, a "parody" is a takeoff on the substance of a work itself -- a play, movie, song, etc. -- in whole or part. It does not seem proper to use that term in reference to a simple play on words such as the title of this short -- calling it a "pun" seems more appropriate. Besides, using "parody" in that context might lead a reader to believe that the short itself is a parody of the referenced movie, which it is not. (Example: If I wrote a book about the travails of a suburban vegetable gardener, I might title it "War and Peas" -- a funny [depending on your taste] pun on the title of the famous work, although the book itself would not be considered a parody of same.)StanislavJ 22:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Parody"
Talk:Eared quetzal

message: This page says they hover. Do these, too?  TREKphiler hit me ♠  16:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feeling harriered 
Talk:Eastern bluebird

message: Possible Sources:
allaboutbirds.org
Davis, Wayne H., Philippe Rocca. Bluebirds and Their Survival. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 1995. ISBN 0813108462
Ritchison, Gary. Eastern Bluebird. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 2000. ISBN 0811727459
Stokes, Donald, Lillian Stokes. The Bluebird Book. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1991. ISBN 0316817457
Zeleny, Lawrence. The Bluebird How You Can Help Fight For Its Survival. London: Indiana University Press, 1976. ISBN 0253107504 
Eastern Bluebird (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article should contain a good description of how forest clearing and exotic species almost drove them extinct. The section on population recovery completely passes over this. Would somebody who knows please add it in.
Avram Primack (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lip service paid to why they disappeared 
Talk:Eastern meadowlark

message: OK, so let's translate.
Alauda -Lark-like songbird [Linné's "Alauda" was not limited to larks]- subtus flava, -yellow underneath- fascia pectorali -?breast bands?- curva -?curved?- nigra : -black- rectricibus -rectrices- tribus -???- lateralibus albis. -white at the side,-
Corpus scolopacinum, - ?Body like a ?shorebird? [meaning plump terrestrial bird in general?]- magnitudine Turdi, - size of a thrush- totum subtus flavissimum. -whole underside very yellow- Pectus macula magna nigricante lunari. -Breast with large black spot shaped like a crescent moon.- Remiges fuscae: secundariae testaceo maculatae. -Remiges dusky brown, secondaries mottled like tortoiseshell.- Cauda rotundata: Rectrices 3 laterales maximum partam albae. -Tail rounded at end, the 3 outer rectrices on each side mostly white.- Unguis posticus pedum major, sed magis curvus quam in reliquis. -Hind toe claw larger, but more curved than others.- Rostrum rectum: -Bill straight:- Maxilla superior teretiuscula, basi nuda. -Upper bill ?a bit rounded?, wit unfeathered base.''
Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Original description
Talk:Eastern phoebe

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Sayornis phoebe -Owen Conservation Park, Madison, Wisconsin, USA-8.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 10, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-01-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Sayornis phoebe -Owen Conservation Park, Madison, Wisconsin, USA-8.jpg]] to appear as POTD 

message: I think there are some extraneous words in the title for ref 11. I removed them. Here is a link to the correct article: https://bioone.org/journals/northwestern-naturalist/volume-91/issue-3/NWN09-38.1/Killing-Barred-Owls-to-Help-Spotted-Owls-II--Implications/10.1898/NWN09-38.1.full  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xarzin (talk • contribs) 16:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove extraneous words in ref 11
Talk:Eastern wood pewee

message: This page should be moved to Eastern Wood-pewee. Few sites use spelling 'Wood Pewee'.  DGERobertson (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move page 

message: Pedants be damned. There's no good reason this bird's name should not be hyphenated.
http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/HyphensBirdNames.htm 02:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  On hyphenation 
Talk:Elf owl

message: The first paragraph of this article contradicts the second paragraph here. HorsePunchKid (talk) 2008-01-22 15:16:13Z
a oyirtliwuefot4vnnt4vt4g vr3ygn  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.175.23.2 (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallest? 

message: Considering replacing the current picture with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Micrathene_whitneyi_29APR12_Madera_Canyon_AZ.jpg  This is a much better picture, but the current one does show it in its more typical habitat. Comments? BBODO (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: making change as there appears to be no objections. BeadleB (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Better Picture?

message: The article stated their diet was mainly insects and later mainly scorpions. These can not both be true. My limited research suggests that the former is true so I will replace mainly with also. GSAckerman (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diet
Talk:Eurasian coot

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:Eurasian coot (Fulica atra) juvenile.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for November 19, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-11-19. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 22:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Talk:Pressure experiment

message: "The current record is 560 GPa, but the sample size is confined to the order of tens of micrometres (10-7 m)."
The exponent doesn't match up.  Is it tenths of micrometers, or should the exponent be changed?  --Shanedidona (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  micrometers 

message: The article needs to be updated. Most of the article is untrue. 
The link to the reference is not working. 
Highest static pressure ever recorded in a lab is in TPa area (e.g. Dubrovinsky et a., 2022 Materials synthesis at terapascal static pressures) Linesbijan (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers are wrong
Talk:Ferruginous hawk

message: Excellent article - ('A-class').--Sambostock 06:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur this is a great article, given it a B class. With some more work an potential GA or even FA. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 23:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tweaked to 'C-class' given need for inline cites. Nice work though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Field sparrow

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:Field sparrow_in_CP_(41484)_(cropped).jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for November 8, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-11-08. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Talk:List of experimental errors and frauds in physics

message: There are several other cases listed on on Scientific_misconduct, notably Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann's cold fusion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.190.146 (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cold fusion

message: Should Polywater be added to this list?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.219.37 (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Polywater

message: Antarctic (Vostok station) ice core data was at one time quoted by several researchers and politicians to offer proof of a strong greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide, and by inference, proof of dangerous anthropogenic global warming. It was later discovered that ancient carbon dioxide cycles lagged  behind temperature changes and hence must have been a consequence, not a driver, of those temperature changes. In spite of the exposure of this error, we still see ice core data being quoted as proof of manmade global warming. Perhaps this should be included in the list of high-profile scientific errors, especially in view of its relevance to large-scale public spending today. 
The original error (including the publicity material based on it by Al Gore) was probably a genuine oversight, but where this is still being quoted in spite of our new understanding of the data, it could be seen as deliberate fraud. --Anteaus (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the ice core literature at all anymore.  What's the most useful reference on this? Colin Rowat (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation of ice core data 

message: Should the 2012 reports that experiments at CERN revealed faster than light particles be included, or were they resolved too quickly? Colin Rowat (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CERN's 2012 speed of light results