lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:More, re, and bre

message: Oddgod, what the heck do you mean by this nonsense? Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day! Duja 08:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You heard wrong. It is of every day use in Greece but never under situations that require even the least formalitty.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonsense

message: in Serbia there is also an interjection "bre", like in sentence "De si bre?"- "Hi" or "What's up"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.69.215 (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  in Serbia 

message: It doesnt matter if macedonian is slavic language or not, that has nothing to do with this situation. The point is that, macedonia should be listed seperate because in Macedonia they use; Re and are also which is not used in Serbia nor Bulgaria.
If you put Macedonia together with use in Greece then it would be better, because the use in these 2 countries is pretty much the same with the same meaning which is not the fact with Bulgaria, serbia and Macedonia.Makedonia (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedonia 

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: Move (non-admin closure) History6042 (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: More (interjection) →  – In the style of Vive, viva, and vivat. I am Romanian, I would have never searched this to find information on the Romanian expression . Several of the other listed languages do not use more either. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 8 September 2023
Talk:Deep-level trap

message: Is there an article about not so deep traps?  Specifically, I am interested in the effects of time and temperature on photographic film. Ideal AgBr is only sensitive to light of an appropriate wavelength, but real crystals are not ideal.  There should be states shallow enough that, with enough time, they can be thermally excited. Is there an article about those states? Gah4 (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not so deep trap states?
Talk:Fataluku language

message: I think the text in the picture is in Tetum, not Fataluku. See the article on Tetum. FilipeS 11:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's in Fataluku, Tetum, Bunak and Portuguese. Quiensabe (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading picture
Talk:Lexington Queen

message: This article does not seem to make any claim that the club is notable.    It leaves me, as a user of the encyclopedia, wondering why I should care and why this club has an encyclopedia article when (presumably) many hundreds of other Tokyo nightclubs do not.  I wish this were explained.
Can this be fixed? —Dominus (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability?
Talk:Hard radiation

message: What sort of unit is gcm−2? Grams per square centimetre? Is this meant to indicate penetration (e.g. 167 grams of lead covering one square centimetre is not able to stop this type of radiation)? Is this just not equivalent to a perpendicular thinkness of lead?--ML5 (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units 

message: I suggest that this article, hard radiation, be merged to ionizing radiation. For the discussion, see Talk: Ionizing radiation#Merge (2018) from Ultrasoft radiation & soft radiation & hard radiation to Ionizing radiation
-- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge (2018) to [[ionizing radiation]]
Talk:Elastic recoil detection

message: There is a discussion of recent changes to this article here. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Added section header. Evensteven (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

text: I am not happy about the step 8 edit either. While it does remove the last hand reference, it is not clear what the target of the citation is. The thing is cited twice, and appears to be an animation, but there is not enough info to fire it up. In addition, the two citations don't seem to me to be in places where a single animation would suffice (but I can't really tell for sure). Finally, the article text they are attached to almost seem like captions rather than sentences or paragraphs. All in all, this looks like incomplete placeholder material. Now that's it present in the article history, where we can always get it back later, I am going to feel free to delete it as I edit more text, unless someone says something first. Evensteven (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial discussion
Talk:Critical radius

message: Hi, we are a group of students studying this topic and we would like to update this article to add more information. We thought about adding the derivation of the expression of critical radius in the case of supersaturation and also add a figure to make it easier to understand it. --Nanowikicmt (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modification of the example section
Talk:Electron Microscopy Center

message: The WikiProject classification for Electron Microscopy Center is Start-class. However, the page has less than 100 words, so it might not meet the grading criteria. If it should be a stub, then please set  on this talk page & reinstate the stub tag(s) on the article page.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please confirm classification
Talk:Japan Microgravity Centre

message: making closure in 2001, but actual closure date is unknown.
http://www.swri.org/9what/events/confer/nsrc/2011/abstracts/international/28884859-2214460.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.117.40.12 (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: This conference abstract says JAMIC has been closed for 10 years
Talk:Free induction decay

message: The term free induction decay come up in other fields such as raman spectroscopy and particularly FTICR. I am not certain as to the correctness of these usages. In FTICR it does refer to a dephasing process but not related to magnetic induction. Any input?--Nick Y. 18:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, NMR spectroscopy is so yesterday.  Today we care about time-domain electronic spectroscopy.128.223.23.171 (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not NMR is "so yesterday" it is still a technique that is widely used and FID is an integral part. 1/6/09  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.130.37.13 (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  usage in other fields than NMR 

message: Rewritten as existing content was a little confused.  Ultimately there isn't much more to be usefully said and this page would be better merged into a new article on FT NMR.
84.92.241.186 18:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Is not FID exactly the same as Larmor precession, in which case should not the articles be integrated, with redirection? 
GilesW 10:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, FID generally refers to the NMR signal rather than Larmor precession.  While the nuclear spin magnetisation is undergoing Larmor precession while the NMR signal is acquired, relaxation processes are responsible for the 'decay' part of FID.  It is helpful to keep the experimental observable distinct from the underlying physical phenomena. The article is stubby, but would fit in better to a proper article on FT NMR. Pdch 13:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Larmor Precession
Talk:Homologous temperature

message: Just because it's a stub doesn't mean garbage is allowed. 
For example, quote:
 Solder (Tmp: 183 °C = 456 K) at 0.85Tmp or 115 °C (= 388 K), would thus be expected to have comparable properties to copper (Tmp: 1085 °C = 1358 K) at 0.85Tmp or 881 °C (= 1154 K).
"Thus???" ...The property of taste perhaps?  Feel? Hardness?  Not a word about properties has been said!  ...Nor any relationship between any substances (such as copper and say, solder).  A list of facts and truisms is neither a definition nor an explanation.  
Likewise, the rest of the article seems to be meaningless, true copy n pasted fact fragments. Today's job mills teach kids that writing is proving to teach that they read the book, nothing more, especially not thought or difficulty or gasp! communication. hint hint.  <BR> --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:79E5:B5F9:5709:7E44 (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughtless Gibberish w facts thrown in.
Talk:Fluid theory of electricity

message: I'm doing a project for my history of science class at the Univeristy of Oklahoma. For suggestions on how to expand this article, it might help to look for information concerning Robert Symmer and his contribution the the studies of the Two-Fluid Theory. Being that the theory is now defunct or void of being used as a proper theory, I would expect there to be viable information to construct a stronger article. Possible contributions or experimentations with the Two-Fluid Theory may help lead to more helpful information.
OKRVA15 (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project For HSCI 3103
Talk:Fluxon

message: I kind of feel there should be some kind of description for why fluxons are not photons (cause those are normally the carriers of electric flux surely?) 94.193.250.172 (talk) Yautja_Cetanu  —Preceding undated comment added 00:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: photons
Talk:Outline of applied physics

message: I've tried to cleanup the list. Here are some questionable ones: 
*chemical vapor deposition processes : seems like chemistry
*vacuum tunneling?
*fiber and guided wave devices: covered under fiber optics, right?
Also, look at Category:Applied and interdisciplinary physics for more stuff delton 05:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of "Fields and Research Areas"

message: Presently lists only applied physics institutions with their own wikipedia pages (see edit by 朝彦). In keeping with WP:NOTCATALOG, would it be better to eliminate this list entirely? I'm not sure, but it does seem that such a list is prone to self-interested additions. Tls60 (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: List of "Institutions/organizations"

message: "Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the tree structure), and as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. The hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets. See Wikipedia:Outlines for a more in-depth explanation.  The Transhumanist 00:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick explanation of Wikipedia outlines
Talk:Atomic diffusion

message: D = \frac{\alpha a^2}{t}
a - lattice constant, alpha numerical coefficient depending on the position of the insterstitial atom, t average time in a interstitial position between 2 jumps. --188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interstitial atoms diffusivity
Talk:Entropy/Archive 4

message: Just yesterday, I looked at Talk:Entropy for the first time since late July and today I am terribly embarrassed to see this fire storm and even more because Leff (for an old ref, see end) in recent months has convinced me that I was absolutely wrong in limiting energy dispersal (in re earthly entropy) in 3-D space in any way. The following is a full explication that I hope will be helpful, but I apologize for not being right in 2002, nor correcting it before now on www.entropysite.com. FrankLambert 00:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apology

message: Some observations (made already, but I thought worth gathering together again) on "dispersedness of energy" as the be-all-and-end-all way of thinking about entropy:
1. The most straightforward interpretation of energy dispersal fails for entropy of mixing, because at the end of the day both originall separated parts of the system will have contents with exactly the same energy (and the same energy density) that they started with.
2. What happens if a structure with configurational entropy is cooled towards a limiting temperature of absolute zero?  In the limit there's still a residual entropy, even though there's no energy. 
3. The most dispersed arrangement of energy of all, a completely even distribution, actually has very low entropy, because there is only one way to achieve it. In reality in equilibrium (maximum entropy) there are significant deviations from perfect dispersal.
To even start to make the "dispersal of energy" story work, it seems to me you have to start making non-obvious special definitions that are at least as radical as defining "disorderedness" in terms of multiplicity.
Fundamentally, the problem is that it's not energy being dispersed between different microstates - it's probability.  Whichever microstate the universe ends up in, each of those microstates must contain all the energy of the original microstate.  It's not energy being dispersed, it's certainty being spread out into more and more broadly spread distributions of probability.
That's why ultimately, I fear tying entropy uniquely to the idea of energy dispersal can become a much bigger stumbling block to a good understanding of entropy even than the confusion which can be caused by the word "disorder".  Jheald 23:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some observations (energy dispersal)
Talk:Electric effective resistance

message: Is Electric effective resistance the same as Electrical impedance? Biscuittin (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard the term 'effective resistance'. Perhaps it is a foreign expression for something known to English speakers by another name. If so, the article needs deleting. Could this be referring to dynamic resistance?
--ProperFraction (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

text: This article is confusing to most users because the variable 'P' here refers to voltage, whereas it is usually referred to as V  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.79.185 (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question
Talk:Hagedorn temperature

message: What happens if there are more than 1 "Hagedorn Temperature" ? :) -,it shouldn't be very "rare" depending on the partition function -Karl-H 16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not rare

message: The article doesn't explain the interpretation of the Hagedorn temp in condensed matter physics. If this is a real thing that's got commonly observed empirical consequences, then at least one concrete physical example would help a lot.--76.93.42.50 (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need example

message: I'm not a physicist, so I'm not going to understand this article.  But the first para has a rather astounding statement, even at that: "Phase transitions (e.g. from a solid state of matter to that of a liquid one) are in general possible only when the system has a higher number of particles than is thought possible." Does this mean that in theory, ice can't melt?  Or it could only melt if there were an extremely large quantity of it? Mcswell (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what is meant is a transition to a system with a higher number of degrees of freedom - some process occurs which liberates new degrees of freedom (like for instance the liberation of water molecules from the crystals). Although this statement is still untrue since you can run the phase transition in reverse. Anyhow good question. It is healthy to question that which does not seem to make sense. --ChrisLHC (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Explain transition

message: I reverted the page to its 2009 state to resolve the copyvio. --vuo (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: Quote: "spew out fireballs" ... I'm sorry, but that is to unscientific for my taste. Normally I argue for approachability in the language used in Wikipedia, but in this case I think this went too far. Maybe a better word or short description can be found as fire has no meaning at that scale, particularly since a photon emission is not necessarily connected. JB. --212.202.49.179 (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fireballs ???
Talk:Imbibition

message: The first paragraph includes language about splitting human skulls. It would be helpful if a link was added citing the source of this information. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  173.219.125.234  (talk • contribs) 17:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: . I couldn't find a source, so I removed it. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request
Talk:Cosmological horizon

message: Is that what they meant by "Quarter sized"? I was a little confused by that. As for the size... 24.26 mm in diameter.
"In any case, it is interesting to note that the cosmological horizon is a maximal limit of perception and not an actual boundary" ... I'm not sure this is a safe statement: the nature of reality is always relative to an observer. for example, doesn't this in-principle boundary of visibility form an event horizon with an equivalent effect to hawking radiation?Snaxalotl (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: How big is a quarter?

message: I would like to see some mention here of the size of the Universe, such as can be found on the observable universe article.
I would also like to know what the difference is between the/a Cosmological Horizon and the/a Particle horizon.
I copied some text over myself from the OU article, but it didn't quite fit so I undid it. Nagualdesign (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of the Universe 

message: Isn't the particle horizon the distance at which are now objects from which we receive the light now, that's to say roughly 50 billion light years, not to confuse particle horizon with Hubble's horizon at 13.7 Gly ? (imagine an object emitting on the Hubble's horizon, the time its light comes to us, it would have moved (faster than light))  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.175.69.214 (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Particle horizon ? 

message: Links to the 'spacetime' article. What the heck is the point of this link? How does it explain the link text or the rest of the sentence that precedes it? It seems to me this link is spurious and distracting and should be removed. Thanks. Comiscuous (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "at the same location in space that happened in the distant past"
Talk:E-folding

message: I'll be adding a new section to this page in which I'll attempt to explain the origin of the e-folding concept, and justify it's use in chemistry and physics. If anyone could review the new section and give comments, I'd appreciate it. I'll have this page on my watch list, but you could always leave comments on my personal talk page as well. Thanks everyone! I'm also considering adding a graphical representation, but I can't really think of a good way to do it yet. Sean Egan (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding New Section - Need Review/Comments
Talk:Ion mobility spectrometry

message: I flagged the external links sections for a WikiProject External links check. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I find the drift cell figure misleading, as it could lead one to believe the gas flow is counter-current to the electric field-induced ionic motion. Although I think this is what occurs in FAIMS, in the figure shown the stacked ring electrodes lead me to believe this is supposed to depict DTIM or TWIM in which case the gas molecules would be experiencing predominantly Brownian motion. Perhaps a more accurate figure is in order.
--EndersJ (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Drift cell figure

message: I would like to move this wiki page to Ion Mobility Spectrometry, essentially removing the hyphen between ion and mobility in the page title. Any objections or feedback, please leave a comment. Gab Brasseur (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving the page
Talk:Duoplasmatron

message: The article flow nicely. However, if you can give more information regarding the history and elaborate further on the three main compartments, it would be great. Adding more diagrams and a image of the real instrument also helpful to better understanding. NimeshaRajapaksha (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: Dass, Chhabil (2006). Fundamentals of Contemporary Mass Spectrometry. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p. 104. ISBN 9780470118498. </br>
Duoplasmatron Ion Source, A Dissertation by Ahmed Ghander (March `1972) Dhebe48 (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Dass is more of a tertiary source (see WP:PSTS). You want refs more like this:  --Kkmurray (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Relevant Sources
Talk:Dutch Blitz

message: The summary states that the essential difference Nertz and Dutch Blitz is "you can play Nertz with four standard playing decks, but must play Dutch Blitz on specialised decks."
I'm PA Dutch through and through, and grew up playing Dutch Blitz in my home (with my three sisters and parents) as well as with my grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins when we'd all get together.  We've all been playing Dutch Blitz LONG before the specialized decks were created.  We played with standard decks - everybody who is playing just needs a deck of cards that has a different backing, so that you can figure out what cards get returned to what players.  The piles in front of the individual are "built down" just like in solitaire, and the piles in the middle are built up based on suite, starting with an Ace.
Evenutally, my Aunt did by the "Dutch Blitz" specialized deck.  Probably the biggest advantage is that it makes play easier for kids.  Instead of working with a deck of 52, you're only handling a deck of 40 (easier for small hands); instead of matching suits on the build pile, your matching colors (easier concept for kids); and finally, in the Dutch Blitz specialized deck, there is no Ace, Jack, King, Queen - just the numbers 1 through 10.
Our deck of specialized Dutch Blitz cards is well worn - when we play we usually use it - but you can certainly easily play with standard decks.  The basic play and scoring rules apply - just have a different-looking set of cards for each player.
:Got to agree with the above poster. Whilst I didn't grow up playing Dutch Blitz and I first played it with the specialized decks, it is really easy to play with standard decks of playing cards (provided each player's deck has a different backing). Take out the Jacks, Queens and Kings and you are playing exactly the same game. Hearts=Red, Diamonds=Blue, Spades=Yellow, Clubs=Green. Aces=1. Red suits are Boys and Black suits are Girls. Or you can leave the Jack, Queen, King in and it is still essentially the same game but with bigger piles. I think saying you can only play Dutch Blitz with specialized decks is extremely misleading94.173.10.78 (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled