lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Antistatic wrist strap

message: I agree.  It should be merged, and then ground bracelet and grounding strap should be redirected to this article. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 20:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree --Modal Jig (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree also.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.240.67 (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  The two articles describe the same device, but the title of this article is the correct name used in the electronics industry. --ChetvornoTALK 20:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge completed. --ChetvornoTALK 21:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[ground bracelet]] with this article 

message: The article says, "Wireless or Dissipative wrist straps are available, but they are widely considered as pseudoscientific hoax products by non-technicians with no electrical knowledge."
Shouldn't this read, "Wireless or Dissipative wrist straps are available, but they are widely considered as pseudoscientific hoax products by technicians with electrical knowledge." ?
Darkman101 (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess was "widely considered as pseudoscientific hoax products marketed by non-technicians with no electrical knowledge" or something of that sort - as it stands it does look dodgy. --GenericBob (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscientific Hoax Products 

message: An editor, Esd expert, has been repeatedly reverting the paragraph on wireless wrist straps, changing the text from "These are widely regarded as ineffective..." to "These are widely regarded as effective...", without sources or edit comments.   Esd expert, this paragraph is supported by 5 reliable sources.  As far as I have been able to tell, the opinion of the electronics industry is that these things don't work.  Do you have any sources to back up your contention that they do?  Cheers.  --ChetvornoTALK 04:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wireless wrist strap edit conflict
Talk:Atomic emission spectrum

message: A new spectral line intensity formula for optical emission spectroscopy was presented by Dr:s Bo Thelin (experimental physicist) and Sten Yngström (theoretical physicist) at the beginning of the 1980:s. This formula has shown very good agreement between experiments (ref 1) and the new theory (ref 2). These references are summaries of earlier papers.
I = K \ left (frac { v^2 }{ c^2 }\ right ) \ e^left (\ frac { -J}{ k \ T \ right )} \   
 \ left (\ e^left ( \ frac { h \ v }{ k \ T \right -  \ 1)^-1
K includes transition rates and element concentration,v=frequency,J=ionisation energy and T=temperature  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.138.183 (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Atomistix Virtual NanoLab

message: I'd like to have a lot more information about this software. What exactly can be done with it?
 The text is not more than the official lines from the referenced website.
I think you can get a trial version.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.118.195 (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Request to update this page to reflect later acquisition by Synopsys.
If someone can please review the following links and make edits, that would be appreciated.
https://news.synopsys.com/2017-09-18-Synopsys-Strengthens-Design-Technology-Co-Optimization-Solution-with-Acquisition-of-QuantumWise
New URL: https://www.synopsys.com/silicon/quantumatk.html
https://www.synopsys.com/silicon/quantumatk/contact-us/about-us.html
Source: I am a Synopsys employee, and don't want to update the page directly due to COI.
--Simpleware Jessica (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to Update Products section
Talk:The Indian Runner

message: Is there any evidence to support the assertion that Frank Roberts was allowed by his brother to "escape across the "Canadian border"? Last I checked, Canada was separated from Nebraska by a couple of Dakotas and more than 500 miles.grifterlake (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is confusion here between Springsteen's song and the movie - Bruce references the Canadian border but in the movie he crosses the state line. I just watched the end of the movie and the sign says simply "state line" and is not clear which state he is crossing into. I will change it. 76.250.142.124 (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Auroral chorus

message: This article seems confused on what its topic is. Chorus is a kind of electromagnetic emission which, when the frequencies are reinterpreted as audible sound waves, sounds like "a series of chirps, whistles, and quasi-musical sounds in predominantly rising tones". The key being electromagnetic waves - these are not sounds. Yet there are numerous mentions of sounds produced by the aurora in the article. Audible sounds coming from an aurora is a completely different topic than chorus emissions. I don't know how much attention this page gets, so for the moment I've commented out the parts about sounds (which includes the entire 'Explaining/Understanding' section), so it won't show up on the saved page but it's still all there.
Musubk (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio waves / sound waves
Talk:Autonomous system (mathematics)

message: If I've understood this correctly, in Properties, y_0' means a value of the variable y which is not necessarily the same as y_0, whereas in Solution techniques: Second order, x' means the derivative of x. Would it be worth using distinct symbols, or at least adding some parenthetical disambiguation to Properties? Dependent Variable (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prime symbol polysemy 

message: All of the solution techniques involve trying to get t = something, when the aim of solving something like \dot{x} = f(x) is to obtain a solution x(t), as t is the independent variable. Cases like x = f(x) cover huge areas of physics but the aim isn't to find out the time given f(x). In a few cases, like someone falling under gravity and experiencing atmospheric drag you end up finding an expression t = F(x) such that you can invert it to get x = F^{-1}(t), which is the solution. However, unless I'm missing something I don't see how saying the solution is to write the independent variable equal some (possibly horrible) expression is correct phrasing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.132.25 (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solution techniques 

message: The Poincare diagram picture is inaccurate. The diagrams for repeated eigenvalues (the delta = 0 curves) should have the solution curves tangent to the eigendirections.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.33.30.170 (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Picture
Talk:Bill Wilson (pastor)

message: This phrase is very badly worded: "found him there and took him at his home". I suspect the author meant to write "found him there and took him to his home" which is quite different. The linked article isn't much help "A gentleman who had seen him sitting there for 3 days stopped and picked him up".
Andrew  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.78.7 (talk) 22:24, August 25, 2007 (UTC) 
:Sorry, i'm not a native speaker, what is the difference between at and to? but go ahead, change it! Martious 11:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Due to the French WP and two VIAF-entries he was born in 1947. Is "1948" a mistake or are there references? -- Jesi (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of birth 
Talk:Bak–Tang–Wiesenfeld sandpile

message: I'm not sure you can say that because the sandpile isn't deterministic. Every time you run the game of life with the same initial setup, you get the same pattern developing even if that pattern is totally chaotic. Not the case here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.55.215 (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cellular automaton
Talk:Baryon number

message: I find the word "However" in the following sentences a bit mysterious :
An exception is the chiral anomaly. However, sphalerons are not all that common. Electroweak sphalerons can only change the baryon number by 3.
The article on chiral anomaly does not contain the word sphaleron and vice-versa. A sentence explaining how they are related would help. Pkoppenb (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Chiral Anomaly

message: No statement in this article has a citation. The article has no references. Please fix. --PointedEars (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the first reference. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, including you. If an article doesn't have a reference, nothing is stopping you from being the one to start adding some. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing references 

message: Isn't Baryon asymmetry evidence against the statement in the lead that baryon number is strictly conserved? QuoJar (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baryon asymmetry 

message: Aren't black holes another exception to conservation of baryon number? They lose almost all their energy in the form of extremely low-energy photons, and they're not likely to emit anywhere near as many baryons as go into them. — DanielLC 02:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black holes
Talk:Fernando de Herrera

message: I've left the poem in for the moment but it certainly needs to be examined for copyright violation. Much I didn't do: proper referencing, rewriting, and thorough copyediting. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 22:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have gone in and corrected the information on the Fernando de Herrera page so that it is no longer in copyright violation.  Instead of using the text from the source, I have placed a link under "For further information, see:" to the original source from which the translated sonnet was taken.  This way, the person or organization that translated it should be given full credit.
hai aji  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajeena (talk • contribs) 05:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fernando de Herrera Correction
Wikipedia talk:Use plain English

message: "I suffer from some cognitive dissonance" ... that sounds like jargon to me. Off with his head! 
That said, your points are well taken. But probably hopeless. - DavidWBrooks 22:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

message: I removed the sentence "Additionally, an employee is better informed and motivated to provide accurate information about his or her business", because it often doesn't work that way.  The rest of the section could use some revision to make it better describe our policy on notability.   --CliffC (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 'Conflicts of interest and vanity articles' 

message: I've never been happy that this essay uses Orwell's rewrite of Ecclesiastes as an example. The essay exhorts editors to use plain English in our articles, but Orwell's example takes a quaintly-written biblical quote (which no-one would write today) and recasts it in modern periphrastic obscurity (which wouldn't be improved back to anything like the biblical quote). So I don't think Orwell helps our readers understand the point we're trying to get across. Since I've already boldly introduced Gowers' Plain Words into the first para, and since we have a quote from Strunk, I've continued with the bold theme and have replaced Orwell with an example from Gowers which, I think, neatly illustrates the sort of writing which we don't want in WP and how it can be improved.
I've also moved the discussion of NPOV, which has no apparent relevance to the Orwell example, to its own sub-section lower down where the point is "prefer the concrete to the abstract". Happy to discuss,  —SMALLJIM  17:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Orwell

message: I have looked up today the Wikipedia articles for nearly 100 private companies in financial trouble. in every case, the wikipedia article highlights the company's positive accomplishments and either omits the difficulties or simply isnt updated after a point.   This selective coverage cuts to the heart of Wikipedia's usefulness as source of business information  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unified field (talk • contribs) 23:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selective Coverage by Wikpedia of Businesses 

message: Some words in context :
Providing a "nourishing/enriched/robust" environment or set of tools and services...
People are people. not zoo animals. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrition 73.83.100.13 (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buzz word growth has grown exponentially..
Talk:Blue shift

message: How come Redshift is an featured article while this one is a stub? Isn't it the same phenomenon only that they are each others opposites? Perhaps a merge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.228.228.224 (talk • contribs) 
:The Redshift article is extremely well-sourced, and has lots of illustrations and context. A merge would not be a bad idea. --Kuzaar-T-C- 11:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is strange anyway. People must prefer red over blue or something :P.  Soon2Bregistered 81.228.228.224 17:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps because this article isn't currently very good? ErkDemon 02:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article?

message: Why was this redirected to redshift? None of the information here was merged to that article. 70.51.9.237 (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: redirect to redshift

message: Should this article not be renamed to blueshift? Redshift is one word. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blueshift
Talk:Boltzmann entropy

message: I personally have not seen how Boltzmann's entropy (S being proportional to Ln of W) is not valid when taking into account quantum mechanics and all its effects on microstates. In the article where the review is meant to be taken from they only talk about the H theorem yielding incorrect results. If I am wrong please correct me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.199.201 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 9 March 2007
:This article isn't about the S = k ln W formula, strictly speaking.  It's about the assumption that W can be factorised into separate identical terms from each particle, W = W1 × W2 × W3 ... 
:For a discussion of S = k ln W see Boltzmann entropy formula. -- Jheald 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: S = k ln W can give the right answer, but only if each 'way' counted in W is a way of arranging the entire universe -- ie each 'way' is including all N particles, and all their inter-particle interactions/energies.  If there are interparticle interactions, you cannot just calculate the single-particle states available to one particle, the way Boltzmann did in his gas lectures, and then multiply up -- to do so is to make a serious approximation. Jheald 14:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Catapult effect

message: After 45 years as a power engineer, I never heard the term catapult effect before.  No illustrations.  No sources. A google search provides a very small number of hits. But one hit says that "Catapult effect" is a synonym for "motor effect"
Electric_motor#Force_and_torque This Wiki article talks about this force as the result of the Lorenz Force Law.
I think catapult effect is obscure nomenclature, and unnecessary because we have the Lorenz Force Law.  I recommend deleting this article from Wikipedia.
Anorlunda (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Luminita Zaituc

message: Luminita, not Luminiţa? - Jmabel | Talk 22:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She was definitely born Luminiţa but Luminita is probably used more often in Germany. Since I haven't found evidence that she's changed her name to drop the diacritic, I moved the page. Biruitorul 23:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hehe, somebody's renamed her again. What should we do, then? By the way, I'm not sure she is Zaituc, not Zaiţuc. The surname looks to have Ukrainian roots, but is extremely rare even in Ukraine. Google gives many pages for "Luminita Zaituc", 25 pages for "Luminiţa Zaituc" and only one for "Luminiţa Zaiţuc" - but, nevertheless, it's well seen that -uc/-uk is a Ukrainian ending, and Зайцук is a possible Ukrainian surname, unlike Зайтук. — Svetko 12:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Charpy impact test

message: Need to add some stuff here...its going on my to-do list! Any suggestions welcome Sam Lacey 00:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to my professor, it was widely adopted after the Liberty ships were splitting in half; a correlation was discovered such that a particular result on the charpy v-notch test would ensure a sufficiently low ductile to brittle transition temperature to avoid the ship-splitting problem.  Unfortunately, I don't have a source on that, and it isn't even the origin of the test, just the origin of its popularity. siafu (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I reverted the page to the last version that existed before vandalizing. No constructive non-bot edits were made in between the vandalism and my reversion, but the fact that the page has been targeted twice in the past month by different people and not reverted promptly is worth noting for the convenience of those checking for vandalism. Any edits that reduce the page size significantly from the current revision are probably vandalism; there is nothing large that should be deleted anytime soon. Bronsonboy HQ 23:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert by Bronsonboy 

message: Choc charby produit 102.77.162.152 (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choc charby
Talk:Bonin Islands/Archive 1

message: It would be interesting to have information on the linguistic history of the Bonins.
As you might know, the lingua franca used to be an English pidgin (creole?), but I have no idea what the situation is today. If the English pidgin/creole has survived into the present day, I would suspect it is being replaced rapidly by Hyozyungo (Standard Japanese). --Node 01:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Linguistic history

message: Note: I have attempted to anglicize the obviously Japanese Wikipedia format, but I'm not familiar with Japanese Wikipedia, so, nu, I probably got some of the format wrong.  — Rickyrab | Talk 23:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: From Japanese Wikipedia article, via Google's translation service 

message: I did what I could to clean up the page. There were some redundant lines, and other things I thought needed to be added/removed/rearranged. Perhaps the subtropical moist forest part should be its own article? --The chuck 17:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup
Talk:Reason to Believe

message: The Dillards also coverd this song on their 1968 electra release 'Wheatstraw Suite. Cgrantmaledy (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The Beat Farmer's song "Reason to Believe" is a cover of Bruce Springsteen's "Reason to Believe" from the Nebraska album, not the
Tim Hardin song.
137.78.29.252 (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks fixed. Next time, you can do it yourself! --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇  05:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beat Farmers 

message: Wish someone would add THIS -- it was the first version I ever heard, in February 1966, and for years I thought that Ian Tyson wrote the song.  This version is one of the very best and definitely deserves a mention. 2603:8080:E605:F7EE:C552:8EC8:FEE8:22A9 (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ian and Sylvia's version of REASON TO BELIEVE
Talk:Fortress Around Your Heart

message: I don't hear any Chinese influence in this song, and there are no sources verifying this idea.  Just because a song is on pentatonic scale doesn't make it Chinese.  Most English folk songs are pentatonic, like "Greensleeves," and Sting is practically historian of traditional English music.  Chinese music is characterized by elaborate articulation, long and highly varied melodies, and relatively simple harmonies.  Even Chinese Mandarin pop sometimes has these characteristics.  winstonho0805 (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @Winstonho0805 102.218.50.91 (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:   Song Information  
Talk:Conditional quantum entropy

message: I've changed the notation from S(rho | sigma) to S(A|B)_rho.  This notation makes it clear that the conditional quantum entropy is defined in terms of a single state (rho) with two subsystems (A,B), whereas the old notation was ambiguous, by not specifying the joint density matrix.    Also, the notation I've introduced is now the standard used; e.g. see the Horodecki-Oppenheim-Winter paper cited in the current article. Aram.harrow (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Notation change
Talk:Conformal anomaly

message: What is the motivation for conformal anomalies theoretically?
The article suggests that conformal symmetry is broken by conformal anomalies, but does not attempt to explain why conformal symmetry might be desirable in physical laws, or why experiment might dictate a need to break this paradigm with anomalies.  This background would help the article a lot, IMHO.  70.247.160.87 (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivation?
Talk:Conformal symmetry

message: Where do the forms of the generators come from? According to me they aren't the conventional forms. It should rather be:
: M_{\mu\nu}\equiv i(x_\mu\partial_\nu-x_\nu\partial_\mu),
: P_\mu\equiv-i\partial_\mu,
: D\equiv-ix_\mu\partial^\mu,
: K_\mu\equiv i(x^2\partial_\mu-2x_\mu x_\nu\partial^\nu),
For example if we take a function f(x_\mu) and we dilate it, we get
: f((1+\epsilon)x_\mu) \approx f(x_\mu) + \epsilon x_\mu\partial^\mu f(x_\mu)
which should be the same as
: e^{i\epsilon D} f(x_\mu) \approx f(x_\mu) + i\epsilon D f(x_\mu)
Greets, David  08:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cleaned it all up myself. MuDavid (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conventions 

message: The definition of P is wrong, should be
:P_\mu=i\partial_\mu
See L.H. Ryder, "Quantum Field Theory", 2nd ed.
Antimatter33 (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in commutation relations 

message: Because it is mentioned every now and then in physics; 
"I can't read this it's in Greek!"
This article needs a tag for improvement or to notify the user opening the page it is not meant to be understood by the layman. There might as well not be any text on this page and just equations; one blue link after another after another after another... Wikipedia is here to define and document things NOT to be a search engine! Lazy!
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.219.204.36 (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Conformal symmetry