lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Gun safety

message: Currently, this section does not cite any sources.  I have just added a link to a YouTube page in which Jeff Cooper lists his four rules of gun safety, and explains his working of rule_1. Does this qualify as a reference? JHowardGibson (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treat firearms as if they are loaded 

message: There was information on gun discipline, like information on correct handling of guns. Examples being trigger discipline, and the two other disciplines, so what happened to it? it's missing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:489c:6101:ca5:18fa:1c66:d45f (talk • contribs) 10:51, July 11, 2021 (UTC)
:Scroll up. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to discipline details? 

message: It seems like a frankly bizarre decision to explicitly mention the four rules, and allude to them multiple times, but not actually list them. Trilobright (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: They have been removed following a discussion. I also think it would be beneficial to quote them (as previously) or summarize. I understand they are used in education. I reckon most citations have been kept, but they’re for verification, not to read about them in the first place. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 17:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four rules
Talk:Firearm

message: The current definition stated is closer to "Small Arms" not a firearm. 
Change: A firearm is any type of gun designed to be readily carried and used by an individual
To: A firearm is a weapon which is designed to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. 73.126.57.180 (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: I agree with you, but it appears the  is written with that definition of firearm, despite the fact at least one of the three cited sources contradict it. I suggest you open a requested move instead. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2023 

message: Article states: “This is the ATF definition of a title II "NFA firearm", as defined by the National Firearms Act”
BATFE did not author or pass the National Firearms act, the United States Congress did. BATFE has no constitutional authority to pass laws or create legal definitions 2600:6C63:43F0:400:BC26:EAFC:9C0E:1849 (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect credit given to author of law 

message: — Assignment last updated by Thecanyon (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture
Talk:Great Depression

message: The current version says: "The Great Depression was a severe worldwide economic depression that took place mostly during the 1930s, beginning in the United States". This is wrong. Trouble started in London/England/GB and continuously affected other places. On the other hand side, damage done to the U.S. economy was so bad that other economies e.g. in South America and on continental Europe were badly affected as well at this point, while the initial British failure of stock markets and related bank collapses were not able to do such enormous harm. In fact, it needed the leading economy to collapse to create such a global crisis, and the leading economy of these days had been the U.S.A. So the article should be re-written/ corrected to tell the actual story and to reflect all relevant facts in a precise and sufficient way. 188.99.107.40 (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Great Depression only happened in the United States,not worldwide. Luke Skywalker 350 (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That is incorrect. Read Great Depression#Socio-economic effects. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. I just learned that it happened in the U.S. Luke Skywalker 350 (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Sentence Wrong 

message: *From the Great Depression to Riots and Rebellions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.197.131 (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myanmar 

message: The chart has a line that is red and blue, but the coloring is not explained.  What does it mean? Kdammers (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart colors 

message: Yes October 24, 1929 fell on a Thursday not Tuesday meaning it would have been October 22 which was known as “black Tuesday” as the author states and therefore it should be edited to reflect the actual date of the event. 2603:8090:103:1E00:919A:F646:73A9:B84 (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: switched back to Black Thursday as the date is correct. Tuesday would've been the following Tuesday and the 29th Cannolis (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the Great Depression started on October 29th, not the 24th  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.140.77 (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2023 

message: how great depression still plays a role in this century 41.116.194.249 (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  the depression of 20th century
Talk:Gamma function

message: In the initial description at the start of the page the short description is in the middle of the formula of the gamma function in the mobile version of the site. This does not seem to be the case in the desktop site. Unanimous350 (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page formatting in Mobile Site 

message: Is there value in using this instead or additionally?:
\begin{align}
& \int_0^\infty t^{z-1} e^{-t} dt \\
& = \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \int_0^{n+1} t^{z-1} \left(1-\frac{t}{n+1}\right)^n dt \\
& = \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{z(z+1)\ldots(z+n-1)}\frac{n!}{(n+1)^n} \int_0^{n+1} t^{z+n-1} \left(1-\frac{t}{n+1}\right)^0 dt \\
& = \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{n!}{z(z+1)\ldots(z+n-1)}\frac{1}{(n+1)^n} \frac{(n+1)^{z+n}}{z+n} \\
& = \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{n!}{z(z+1)\ldots(z+n)} (n+1)^{z} \\
& = \frac{1}{z} \prod_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{(1+1/n)^z}{1 + z/n}
\end{align}
where the second equality is integration by parts  times. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 22:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This proves it only for \Re (z)>0. And as noted by Plusjeremy, that alone is insufficient for proving the reflection formula. Can you show that the infinite product is analytic for z\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\mathbb{Z}_0^-? (We're assuming the integral definition together with \Gamma (z+1)=z\Gamma (z)). A1E6 (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof of equivalence of the three definitions 

message: are all these defenitions of \Gamma(x) shown?
\begin{align}
\Gamma(x)=\int_{0}^{\infty}t^{x-1}e^{-t}dt\\
\Gamma(x)=\int_{0}^{1}(-\ln(t))^{x-1}dt\\
\Gamma(x)=\lim_{n\to\infty}n^{x-1}\prod\limits_{k=1}^{n}\frac{1}{k+x-1}
\end{align} Erikgobrrrr (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  are all these definitions shown?
Talk:Film genre

message: I have tagged this article for OR and needing more RS for verification. It has gone mostly unedited for years and IMO become quite sad. Jump in and let's edit the F out of it. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs some TLC and fresh eyes 

message: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon, a mouse... (talk • contribs) 4:49, 31 December 2018  (UTC)
:I deleted the text that "Anon, a mouse" had pasted here because all the formatting displayed wrong, and I included a permalink to their sandbox which properly displays the correct formatting. Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the rewrite is a really great start, and I especially like the lead section because it's clear and easy to understand. However I do think there is a lot of good information on the current page, and I think that whole sections from the current article could be added to your rewrite (e.g. "History" "Pure and hybrid" "Categorization"), even though they as well need to be significantly edited. Also, maybe some information from the article's current lead section can be incorporated into other sections of the new draft? -Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here is my proposed re-write 

message: Shouldn't Thriller be placed separately outside of Drama? Anubhab030119 (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible misplacement 

message: On the template it said that the article referenced in the title had multiple issues. I am a child, and I probably should not be doing this, but can someone older fix it please? 101.98.24.246 (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Film Genre article has issues
Talk:Golden Gate Bridge

message: Actors were filmed on Golden Gate Bridge for A View to a Kill. 
*search: "james bond" "Golden Gate Bridge"
:.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:   A View to a Kill 

message: — Assignment last updated by Juanafrancescaa (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Writing 1 MW
Talk:Greenhouse effect

message: I think we should generally only have one image for the lead (or an image collage). I don't think this image (see on the right in second position), that is currently in the lead as the second image is suitable at all. I've been looking at it for a while and I simply don't understand it. The images in the lead need to be clear and simple. 
As per WP:LEADORDER: " As with all images, but particularly the lead, the image used should be relevant and technically well-produced. It is also common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page."
This does not apply to the image on the right. I think it should be moved further down and not be in the lead.
Separately, what is the exact source for the image? It's your own work, User:Efbrazil? If I click on the link provided in Wikimedia Commons I get to this page: https://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/rrtm/ - which looks completely different (and possibly clearer) than your version.  
The other image that is currently the first image of the lead looks good at first sight but I wonder if it actually too simplified. 
Compare with the image used at greenhouse gas, which could equally well be used at greenhouse effect - but probably has its own flaws as well. (third image on the right) EMsmile (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The second image was arrived at after extended discussion on a Talk Page (either here or elsewhere, I forget). The first image is a simple conceptual introduction that is a foundation for the second, quantitative image that is well explained by its caption. Since the GHE is a technical subject, we shouldn't concede to a vague perception that only one lead image is needed. The second graphic presents numbers that might be better sourced (in the Commons file description page, or in the caption itself), but that's a ~background issue. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suitable image for the lead?
Talk:Game theory

message: In this edit I partially restored this edit which was reverted in this edit. A review article of the use of tool X in field Y is exactly the correct type of WP:RS to establish a claim of the form "X is a commonly used tool in Y field". I also added in coverage in the popular media for good measure. It certainly looks to me like game theory is used enough in epidemiology to warrant including a section about it in this article. The second half of the material that was reverted, in contrast, is WP:UNDUE focus on a single paper for inclusion in a general encyclopedia article on game theory, and I have not restored that. - Astrophobe (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: GT in epidemiology

message: "As of 2014, with the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences going to game theorist Jean Tirole, eleven game theorists have won the economics Nobel Prize. John Maynard Smith was awarded the Crafoord Prize for his application of evolutionary game theory."
This is pretty out of date. If I'm not mistaken the 2016 and 2020 Nobel Prizes were awarded for work in Game Theory. If someone is able to confirm this understanding, I suggest an edit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.209 (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobel Prizes 

message: The introduction mentions von Neumann and Morgenstern, but doesn't mention John Nash or Nash equilibria. It probably should, though. Macoroni (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction should mention John Nash
Talk:Genius

message: Yea:    15,253,101
Nay:    0
claims to have invented the Internet
Of course the guy had a 160 IQ and he build an atomic bomb at a young age.He is a genius.
 Jokerkick (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please vote here if you knew there'd be a picture of Einstein 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Genially and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Genially until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Genially" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Look at this video. In it Albert-László Barabási argues for two categories of genius, but more pertinently, he argues that the strongest correlation for "peerless genius" is *drumroll please* the number of Wikipedia languages the bio article has been translated to! (2:33 in the linked video) CapnZapp (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ordinary and peerless geniuses... and Wikipedia
Talk:Game Boy Advance

message: I feel that my edit was unjustly reverted, particularly as it was simply fed back as 'unnecessary'. While I don't think the information I added is absolutely vital, I don't think it needed removing. Thoughts? Griseo veritas (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: NB. I felt this was better that reverting the reversion and potentially just kicking off an edit war. Griseo veritas (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit reverted as unnecessary? 

message: I've decided to rephrase the re-releases section a bit today; there was something about it that was kinda confusing, like the Satoru Iwata Wii U VC thing, which was actually twice on Nintendo Direct; first in early 2013, then on February 13, 2014. - TheLennyGriffinFan1994 (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-releases section
Talk:Graffiti

message: The section "Offensive graffiti" seems a bit fuzzy, since "offensive" doesn't have a clear definition to begin with. Also, it's unclear how the "One World!" piece connects to the section, anyway, without context. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Section "Offensive graffiti"

message: The final paragraph of this section seems like it could use some heavy editing. The subject in the first sentence, "graffitist", isn't exactly clear; the way it's used makes it sound like the paragraph is referring to the beliefs of an individual rather than a broader ideological trend. This is also made more confusing by the way the rest of the paragraph is written. It's both very specific and subjective in a way that makes it sound more like a quote than an encyclopedia entry.
The paragraph cites one source, a page on a website called The Art Story. Looking on this page, it seems like most of the text in this paragraph is just a paraphrased version of the summary section of that page. If this section is going to be kept, I think it needs to be revised to specifically refer to what it's saying as an opinion being put out by this website. With the level of detail being repeated and the lack of mentioning where the ideas are from, it comes across much more as plagiarism than as reference, and if the current level of detail is necessary, it should be included as a quote rather than as paraphrasing. Andurad (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Use" 

message: Someone misspelled "Vandalism" and put "vanadlism" instead. Joe (USA) (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's a typo that I want to fix, Why is this article semi-protected?
Talk:Global Positioning System

message: We need a WP:RS for this. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a fundamental fact due to the intersection of three spheres around the satellites, determined by the current time and location on Earth. There must be good references for this. David Spector (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Note that four satellites are needed to include a fix vertically (feet above sea level). I don't have a reference for this, but I learned it in a satnav project. David Spector (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If the clock in the receiver is known to be in sync with the three satellites, there are two solutions to the governing equations (except in some degenerate cases). One of them is the location of the receiver, the other one is moving rapidly through space. Comparison to earth's radius or a repeated measurement will show which of the two is correct. This is a 3-dimensional measure, long, lat, and elevation. If the clock is not synchronized accurately enough, a fourth satellite is needed and the equations are solved for position and receiver time simultaneously.−Woodstone (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atomic clock in sync will only need 3 satellites to get a fix 

message: The GPS implements two major corrections to its time signals: one for the special theory of relativity and another for the general theory of relativity. Mention of this is buried in the History section, and is entirely omitted from the Timekeeping section. Ideally, there should be a bit of explanation of the cause of each correction, and the reason for the direction of the correction. David Spector (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: it's filed under time dilation: Time_dilation#Combined_effect_of_velocity_and_gravitational_time_dilation. fgnievinski (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you muchly, I'll do the edit. David Spector (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

text: I added a reference to the Timekeeping section, but I'm not certain this is the right section. Certainly "History" is not the right section. David Spector (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relativistic time corrections are buried 

message: — Assignment last updated by Thecanyon (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture

message: It's four sentences long. MOS:LEADLENGTH says remove. nogamehere1 (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section too long warning
Talk:Galaxy groups and clusters

message: I think there is a better place for the entropy calculation somewhere else. It is not done correctly anyway. Oth (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entropy 

message: There's really no need to have multiple pages on groups and clusters, as they differ only in size, and there's no sharp physical change. (Historically, clusters could be detected without redshift information, while groups couldn't, but almost all data today uses redshift information for cluster detection anyway.) It makes more sense to me to have a single article covering groups and clusters of all mass ranges. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge [[Galaxy cluster]] into this page 

message: Galaxy subgroup and Galaxy subcluster redirect here, but aren't explained in the article. -- Beland (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galaxy subgroup, Galaxy subcluster 

message: the image for the article, a picture of MACS J0152.5-2852, a galaxy cluster - the caption states that almost every "pixel" in the image is a galaxy, while the details provided alongside the photograph clearly state that it's every "object" in the image that's a galaxy, which makes a lot more sense, as most pixels seen are in fact dead space or not in field of view.
meow <3
-jade 2600:6C47:A0F0:8390:B9D8:C97C:BD5A:512F (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption for image of MACS J0152.5-2852 incorrect
Talk:Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

message: Is music really a "main interest" when it is mentioned only twice in the page?
77.201.32.164 (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: I think that single engraving where the family name is misspelled is not a justification or proof that it should be spelled like that in French. (Obviously, the given names are the common French variants of these, but that's unrelated to the family name. BTW, the French WP page fr:Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz says "parfois francisé en Godefroid-Guillaume Leibniz"...) — MFH:Talk 15:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong spelling on engraving 

message: I would like to write some extra information but to enquire opinions from the fixtures of Wikipedia before the admixture.
I have a Finnish chapter called Antiikin Kulttuuri Historia (the Culture History of Antiquity, 1980) where some intriguing claims concerning Leibniz: the text can be translated something like this:
"Instead Leibniz whose recreations reached abroad (inter alia for the linguistics), was orienteted himself onto Antiquity, likewise of Greek. 
The exatc sciences were already waived of for the uncritical faith regarding the mathematicians and natural scientists. Therefore Descartes plus Newton hardly utilized the sources of the Antiquity for their opusses.
Leibniz is apparently the last significant (quantum) scientist, who regarded lean himself on directly to the tradition of the Antiquity."
After the Beginning of Infinity by David Deutchs, Wikipedia should introduce these knowledge, after the commentary, critique plus improvements... Kartasto (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Dream of Socrates 

message: Gottifried Wilhelm leirniz 105.112.184.186 (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of computer science