lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Normal distribution

message: The statement says "... about any known value of the distribution, \Phi(xo)." Should xo be x_0? Asyasylin (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that that was supposed to be the case. This section also needs sources for verification. DekuNut64 (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  xo notation in Taylor Series sections 

message: In portrait mode on mobile browsers, the equation for the general form of the probability density function in the article summary appears below the infobox, meaning that the first paragraph on the page appears to abruptly end at "The general form of its probability density function is", which had me confused until I scrolled down past the infobox. It might be a good idea to rearrange/reorder things such that the aforementioned 'incomplete' sentence and the equation that completes it would stay together, whether that means moving them both above the infobox, or below it. TheWizardG (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page formatting issue on mobile 

message: Greetings Wikipedians! I salute the editors for all their work on this article. The effort must have been considerable, given the level of detail included here. But it seems to be written for math or engineering students, rather than for the average reader. It would benefit if someone would add a simple explanation that a layman can understand. The best place for that would be early in the article, prior to all those equations. I'll volunteer to correct that. As always, comments are welcome. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs to be simplified
Talk:Neutron

message: If the mean lifetime is 879.6±0.8 s then the half time is 609.7±0.7, not 610.1±0.7 s. Maybe this was caused by using "ln(2) = 0.693".  Mc22222 (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks Johnjbarton (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "free" neutron - half time 

message: Perhaps this has been discussed already, but I've stepped in it just now...the controversy regarding the neutron's lifetime.  There are discrepancies between the mean lifetimes of ultracold neutrons and "in beam" neutrons.  Out of ignorance, I've just modified the numbers to the ultracold neutrons.  We should decide what to do...and mention the controversy perhaps?  I seek a consensus...  Bdushaw (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a stab at including a short paragraph on the issue...there does not seem to be much point in specifying a precise value for the lifetime just yet, given how the measured numbers are changing and conflicting! Bdushaw (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The Particle Data Group value is the recognized standard and their value should be quoted. I updated the ref. However the current text has derived values so we have no idea if they are correct or not. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: But there is no "standard" value...  The citation actually talks about averaging the "bottle" values with one of the "beam" values, but those values are different, hence shouldn't be averaged.  Meanwhile, both values seem to be changing year by year! Bdushaw (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutron "mean lifetime" 

message: I've been working on citations and find myself somewhat stymied for a citation on positron capture.  Firstly, although the text in the article associated with the term seems to me correct, "positron capture" is mostly ignored by standard text and references, certainly insofar as giving the basic discussion given in the article.  I find, e.g., online course pages with discussion of the reaction.  This form of "beta decay" is certainly correct, but unobservable/non-existent in ordinary existence.  However, it seems to play a non-negligible role in the stellar formation of the elements.  See W.A. Fowler, "The quest for the origin of the Elements", Science, 226, Nov 23, 1984.  Perhaps the topic is too far astray for this Neutron article and the whole thing should be removed.  Requesting comment! Bdushaw (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked around and also found little. It's possible that the positron-neutron reaction in stars has a different name. My suggestion is just to delete that sentence. If we find a source it can be added back. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've revised the paragraph, including the citation I gave above.  I've removed much of the "improvisational" material.  Keeping the mention of "positron" capture in stars supports the mention of nucleosynthesis in stars in the lead (which the article does not yet seem to mention!). Partly, I have a remote association with Fowler, who won the Nobel Prize... Bdushaw (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positron capture
Talk:New York Yankees

message: who played part of 1913 season with them. That was the first year they were known as the Yankees. McKechnie was elected to the HOF as a manager, his primary team being the Cincinnati Reds. 
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mckecbi01.shtml
I do not want to try to edit this myself. Thanks. Oil City Bob (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, meant to post this on NYY article, which I now did. Oil City Bob (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing from list of Yankees in Hall of Fame is Bill McKechnie 

message: Change the line "During the 5th inning, the grounds crew, while performing their duties, dance to "Y.M.C.A."." 
The YMCA is actually played in between the sixth inning. Larisaparone (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. HouseBlastertalk 21:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2023
Talk:Negotiation

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://procurementtactics.com/negotiation-styles/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Sam Sailor 15:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Cognitive bias is a type of systematic thinking mistake that has an impact on how we understand information, assess options, and make decisions. These mistakes can happen in any circumstance, but they frequently happen during negotiations.
In negotiations, some typical cognitive biases include:
Overconfidence: The propensity to think we are more knowledgeable and accurate than we actually are. This could cause us to make irrational requests or ignore the other person's worries.
An over reliance on the first item of information we are given is known as "anchoring." Because we are linked to a starting figure, this may force us to make choices that are not in our best interests.
Loss aversion: The propensity to favour preventing losses above achieving equal gains. This can lead us to walk away from a negotiation even when it is in our best interests to compromise. Jak1920 (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: - We're not going to get unsourced material like this, see WP:NOR and WP:V. Are you editing as some kind of class or group? We are seeing a lot of attempted additions to this article like this lately. - MrOllie (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2023
Talk:U.S. Carrier Group tactics

message: -Harpoon II: Admiral's Edition (DOS) Manual : Three-Sixty Pacific, Inc. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
I wanted to point out for someone interested. Some Harp user (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is based on Harpoon II naval warfare guide
Talk:1

message: I've asked this question at the language reference desk: WP:Reference_desk/Language#Use_of_capital_"J"_as_a_substitute_for_the_digit_"I". Please feel free to answer there or here. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That discussion resulted in some references - while they do not discuss the use of J as a substitute for I or 1, they are examples of historic use. Since the sentence simply states it is possible to find historic examples, in my opinion this isn't WP:OR. I have added the references to the article.Polyamorph (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference for use of uppercase 'J' as a substitute for {{rn|I}} 

message: insert the citation:" in through scholarly works written in Arabic.[citation needed]"
Insert:  MPBWM (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The provided source is not in Arabic.  Spintendo  22:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  the source does not have to be in Arabic, the citation needed relates to the transmission of the numeral via Arabic texts.  the reference you provided is not in English so I've been unable to verify where the relevant information is. Do you have a page number? Or an English language source? Polyamorph (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2023 

message: "Additionally, 1 is the smallest possible difference between two distinct natural numbers."
3-4 = -1 
-1<1 2003:CA:E70B:F500:ACDE:4B1D:9525:6ED1 (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read between the lines that "1 is the smallest possible absolute difference". i.e. the difference between 3 and 4 is |3-4| = |4-3| = 1. Dhrm77 (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallest Difference?
Talk:Organ

message: Where do glands such as thyroid or sex glands go? Also, subparts of organs, e.g. the pituary gland or hypothalamus within the brain are distinct regions of cells within a mulitcelluar organism that perform a distinct function, hence by the above definition they would be organs, yet normally they are not seen as independent organs but rather as parts of organs.
Sea Organ, Wave Organ and Tidal Organ all appear to be sea-based organs. Perhaps the list needs altering to group these together, or a separate "Sea Organ" list creating? Any comments? MattKitty (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The entries that are sought by the greatest number of readers are Organ (biology) and the various musical instruments . Currently, they're arranged at top, each in their own section ("Biology" and "Musical instruments"), and I think that's a good setup. The Biology section contains a single entry – such tiny sections are almost always to be avoided, but that appears justified here given how many readers will be interested in that one link.
There was a suggestion to group the biology and music meanings into a single section called "Common meanings", but I'm not sure that's an improvement: some of the other meanings, though not accounting for a lot of traffic, are also common (as in: organ of an organisation or organ as a publication) and we probably shouldn't be listing them at the top.
A related question is how many, if any, of the types of organ to list here. These are all obviously subtopics of the main article, but some of the links do get clicked by readers quite a lot, which means they're likely helpful, and – on a more fundamental level – there's at least one of those musical instruments – the Pipe organ – that's almost always referred to as just "organ" and so may be the one musical instrument that readers expect to be at the title. – Uanfala (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisation of the most common meanings
Talk:Open-source model

message: "Open source" (without dash, with dash, and disambiguation) are now redirected to the improved Open source disambiguation which may become a :WP:broad concept article to reduce the extreme number of disambiguation-link alarms.  Please read more on the latest developments on Talk:Open source and feel free to improve Open source.  ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improved open source disambiguation (that may become a broad concept article) 

message: Hi Folks,
I came across this wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_model#Economics and within the table, a company called 'Sauce Labs' is described as the leading company for Selenium (as seen in the table). That being said, the citation used - https://www.battery.com/powered/boss-index-tracking-explosive-growth-open-source-software/ clearly mentions BrowserStack and Sauce Labs. Could you guide me on the best way of incorporating 'BrowserStack' into the table? I am a novice and want to be cautious as there is also a conflict of interest (I work for BrowserStack). 
Thank you.
SManiar (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing a table within this page
Talk:Recapitulation theory

message: ::Don't know if this resolves the point about selective pressures, but as an example: Barnacles have two distinct larval stages, the nauplius and the cyprid, before developing into a mature adult. The nauplius is the larval stage of crustaceans, and this finding was the clue for scientists that barnacles are a crustacean. . dave souza, talk 07:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Barnacles

message: removed behaviorial development from fields in which recapitulation theory is seen as plausible.  The citation does not match the assertion.  The citation is from someone who incorrectly believes that recapitulation theory is plausible in anatomy and then argues that it's *not* correct in behavioral development.
In fact, recapitulation theory is pretty discredited in the field of early childhood development.  I'll add some text when I get citations
::like Behavioral Development, 
Roadrunner (talk) 06:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behavioral development 

message: Elizabeth Royte in her book, The Tapir's Morning Bath, assumes this theory as fact when describing the development of her baby during her pregnancy while on Barro Colorado Island.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.150.32 (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! The talk page is for discussing the article, not the subject. Is there anything in the article you would like to discuss here? With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 10:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory still cited as fact in science writing 

message: The article is tagged as being too narrowly focussed on the 19th century biological theory (Haeckel et al), but in fact both the lead and the body of the article seem quite gracefully to discuss both the discredited biological theory and the existence of newer theories in other fields. Any reason not to remove the tag? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagged as too narrow
Talk:Operation Desert Storm

message: Please note that this is a propaganda term that should not be used when avoidable. Furthermore, redirects should be avoided in general. Please help removing them. Añoranza 00:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Propaganda usually comes from the government, is thus official and this does not change anything about the fact that it is not neutral and should be avoided in an encyclopedia. Añoranza 00:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry i think concensus is against you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, you and one other editor do not make a consensus. Second, the basic principle of the neutral point of view supports my view, as, as you know, do other editors. Añoranza 04:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 66% against you, your threshold was 50% if I remember correctly, are you stating otherwise now? Before people participate please see this users contrib page and talk page for more information on the ongoing discussion regarding this users edits to page containing operation names. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 04:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you even realize this article page has lead to Gulf War for sometime now? Since October 2002 or so? Do you even check the pages you complain about? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 04:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you even read what is written above? Añoranza 04:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is rude, I will not respond to further comments by you here in hopes of defusing the situation. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 04:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Propaganda term
Talk:Oxygen

message: Shouldn't oxygen-15 be listed as "trace" rather than "synthetic" , since trace ammounts are produced naturally by lightning and in the sun. 174.103.211.189 (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxygen-15 natural occurrence  

message: thought that should be changed 2605:A601:AA0D:F900:9CA4:FB25:36E:D726 (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oxygen is the most abundant specifically on Earth’s crust 99.17.2.140 (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Define abundance. By number fraction, i.e., actual number of atoms, oxygen is by far more abundant over the entire Earth. There is a greater mass fraction of iron but that's simply because it's heavier. However, as stated in the article, there is a greater abundance of oxygen by mass in the Earth's crust and biosphere. Polyamorph (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  oxygen is not the most abundant element on earth. iron is
Talk:Ottoman Empire

message: In the Decline and Modernization Area it gives biased information about Abdul Hamid the Second for his so called "cruelty and paranoia". This may be true but at least give reference to who called Abdul Hamid II this. It should say something like the following. "Abdul Hamid II, was also heavily criticized with many names such as "Abdul Hamid the Damned"" etc. Ayan727 (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a source that describes him as incompetent, paranoid and cruel. M.Bitton (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I removed it since a) this article is not about him and b) it doesn't seem to add anything to what's already mentioned about his paranoia. M.Bitton (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2024 

message: for me the name would be "osmanic empire" - i can not even find the term osmanic in the article - IMHO it should exist as alternative name in the very top of the article.
Additionaly there certainly is some alternative history of an organizational system that endured centuries - the article has a very mainstream / modernistic feel to it. Ebricca (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  name and perspective 

message: Who is the Ottoman Caliph? who is the Sultan? who is the "sadr Azam" (prime minister)? who is the Pasha (Badishah)?
Ottoman government is very unclear on its power structure!
15:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  who is who? 

message: ottoman empire is poopoo Fennalfennan123 (talk) 06:46, 22 April 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. User:CanonNi (talk|contribs) 06:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2024 

message: — Assignment last updated by Lavenderluvr12 (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Global History, 1500-Present

message: Re.ove text has to be pared down from reading. 64.189.18.39 (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insane amount of text more subheadings and remove text.
Talk:Old English literature

message: Can someone with some knowledge of Old English please look at the line-by-line translations. I have enough OE to be able to see that the translations don't line up at all well. For example, Hē ǣrest gesceōp / eorðan bearnum is translated as "First He created heaven as a roof", yet "heaven as a roof, holy maker (heofon tō hrōfe, / hālig Scyppend) appears in the next line and is translated as "The holy Maker, for the sons of men". This is confusing, and this phrase not even difficult to translate directly. These lines should be translated as:
Hē ǣrest gesceōp / eorðan bearnum - He first shaped / for Earth's children
heofon tō hrōfe / hālig Scyppend- Heaven as a roof / Holy Maker
Surely it's much easier to see the relationship to modern English if we have a line-by-line, and (as much as possible) a word-for-word translation. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Translations 

message: :According to Bede, the 7th century work Cædmon's Hymn is considered as the oldest surviving poem in English.
I'm not sure how to word that better.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Bede say that? 

message: English 49.126.14.195 (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old english literature