lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Displayed average noise level

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://137.204.59.200/personale/bmasini/lab-tlc-la/Esperienze/Agilent_Spec_Analyzer_5952-0292.pdf (pg. 58). Infringing 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, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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.  NortyNort  (Holla) 08:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Duhamel's integral

message: I think we should add a note about the fact that it's an obvious example of Green's functions application. Mclaudt (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green's function 

message: The article describes only a special case (ordinary differential equations of 2. order). There is a different Definition of the Integral here in the context of PDEs: Encyclopedia of Mathematics (Springer), more like the explanation in Duhamel's principle.--Claude J (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Special Case
Talk:Non-combatant evacuation operation

message: This article really could do with an overhaul. Right now it is written in a purely US PoV, when quite a few other countries like France, Belgium and Italy to name a few, have a fully developed NEO-capacity.
--81.228.158.36 (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I grouped all the US material under one US heading and added the  tag. RJFJR (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Physics/wip/leadproposal3

message: Physics is the branch of science whose goal is to understand nature in terms of simple and universal truths.  Physicists create theories to describe the underlying laws of nature in a predictive way, and state their theories in the language of mathematics to make them succinct and precise.  Traditionally, physics has proceeded by understanding the smallest and simplest components of matter and the interactions between them, and involves ideas such as energy, forces, space, and time.  The foundation of physics, like the other sciences, is the scientific method; experimental observation is the ultimate test of any physical theory.
Classical physics traditionally included the fields of mechanics, optics, electricity, magnetism, acoustics and heat. The more recent fields of general and special relativity have also usually been placed within this category. Modern physics is a term normally used to cover fields which rely on quantum theory, including quantum mechanics, atomic physics, nuclear physics, particle physics and condensed matter physics.  Although this distinction can be commonly found in older writings, it is of limited current significance as quantum effects are now understood to be of importance even in fields previously considered purely classical.
Physics research is divided into two main branches: experimental physics and theoretical physics.  Experimental physics focuses mainly on empirical research, and on the development and testing of theories against practical experiment.  Theoretical physics is more closely related to mathematics, and involves generating and working through the mathematical implications of systems of physical theories, even where experimental evidence of their validity may not be immediately available.
—BryanD 23:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead proposal '''3'''
Talk:Society of Seven

message: I can't write an update without being accoused of "original research" but this article neeeds an update. As of May 11, 2023, both the Society Of Seven and the Society Of Seven-Las Vegas have been disbanded for several years, SOS leader/founder Tony Ruivivar died in 2020, and the Outrigger Main Showroom became the Blue Note Hawaii in January, 2016. 2603:800C:3A40:6400:2945:8B51:2C1D:D8B2 (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs an update to finish the story
Talk:Bone tissue

message: Any thoughts of putting in a disambiguation page for bones (organ) versus bones (tissue)?  WLU 23:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

message: DOESNT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN TRABECULAR AND COMPACT BONE
~UserIP:213.48.73.94 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Figma (talk • contribs) 05:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment relocated from article pg 

message: Thoughts on merging compact and spongy bone into this article?  All three are short, there's a fair bit of duplication, a couple of headings could easily be thrown in to assist with wikilinks in other articles.  Seems like it would make sense.  WLU 14:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: Bone tissue is formed from bone cells. No need to have separate articles when they have such a similar scope. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Bone cell]] 

message: These two types of bone are related and should be displayed together. This will help readers and future editors by centralising information, and decrease needless confusion and fragmentation. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Cancellous bone]] 

message: As above Tom (LT) (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Support all the above - but - is there any reason why the three articles cannot be merged with Bone. As it is there is duplication on all pages and the Bone page has plenty of room. It would make a much more comprehensive page.--Iztwoz (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I worry that we will be rolling some important topics into the main article here and think it would be better that we have a general overview for most readers at Bone, and a more technical coverage of these types of bone in greater detail here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Cortical bone]] 

message: *Much of page is duplicated on target page. Difficult to know what to include on this page or leave on target page particularly Clinical significance items. Individual bone cells would still have their own pages. A merge would not create a very large article. Iztwoz (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge
Talk:Electrocaloric effect

message: 12 K is -261.15°C, not 12°C, not even close to room temperature 2001:861:388E:5600:6D4D:5CFA:C072:79F0 (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It refers to a change of 12 K, which is identical to a change of 12°C. I don't see the problem. The source also says as much. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion between Klevin and Celsius 

message: Apparently there have been recent developments:
* Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03595-1
* Science: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi5477
I added that second one to the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more recent sources
Talk:Graphics card

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Comparison of video cards and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Comparison of video cards" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: This article could use a thorough revision to include graphics cards from other platforms than PC. Also, there is the issue that these are differentiated from integrated graphics which is not really useful. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel this article should be moved to a new article "Computer graphics card", that is "computer GC" should have a dedicated article (but not this one), while this should be more general. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure there is any other kind of graphics card than a computer graphics card, but there is integrated graphics of all varieties, which are not cards, and there are graphics cards on many kinds of computers other than PC compatibles. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too PC-centric 

message: Not sure if it's the same thing, definitely falls under the same umbrella, but there were things like MPEG-2 video card add on for atari jaguar. The article is exclusively PC oriented. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  In consoles? 

message: integrated graphics: video hardware can be integrated into the motherboard, CPU... Can it then be called an expansion card?? Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  is a computer expansion card? is it always?
Talk:Electron-capture dissociation

message: Bibliography
Outline for Editing
1. Introduction
2. History
3. Features and Efficiency of Electron-capture dissociation
4. Electron Capture Tandem Mass Spectroscopy
5. Role of Electron Capture Dissociation in
   5.1 Charaterization of peptides and proteins
   5.2 Bio-molecular Analysis
   5.3 Branched Radio Frequency Ion Trap
   5.4 Phosphopeptide Mapping
   5.5 Top-Down Mass SpectrometryRuchikasharma16 (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research Topic- Chem 4558 

message: Added and assessed the B class criteria.There are a lot of references and some could be replaced by secondary sources. There's
b not really much in article so i would suggest adding different sections and filling them up with content from your sources. Remove some of the bigger words so that it is easier to understand by people who are not really familiar wit the topic. Additionally, an image would help make this article better. 
update: meets B class criteria
Jamirazhao (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  B class criteria 

message: Hey. I have made some major edits to this article . Let me know if you have any suggestions to make it better.Ruchikasharma16 (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes made to the article
Talk:China Next Generation Internet

message: This article needs dates to put it in context!  When was this plan started, when was it first announced publicly, and when do the 5 years of the plan period start? 69.87.202.147 23:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which Five Years?

message: : China has more high-speed Internet users than it does IP addresses
The IP address starvation article seems to differ greatly with this statement. And the references in the CNGI article indicate that the reasons for CNGI are more about China aiming to have its own independent technology capability and competitive advantage, not imminent address starvation. Michael Gold 00:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding on this issue is that both are true.  I am not sure exactly how it is worked out currently, somewhere along the line of port forwarding and routing tables.  This is also why internet speed is slower generally in mainland china.  Yongke 13:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  China starved for IP addresses?
Talk:Electron ionization

message: reqdiagram| electron ionization, for example , indicating vertical ionization and reaction coordinate to help explain fragmentation --Kkmurray (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking more of the Morse potential-like curves to illustrate vertical ionization (Franck–Condon principle). --Kkmurray (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a diagram graphically illustrating the interaction; not the Energy states. Removed reqdiagram. Old reqdiagram info reqdiagram| electron ionization, for example , indicating vertical ionization and reaction coordinate to help explain fragmentation --Kkmurray (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagram

message: ***RE: First diagram in main page
This is not relevant to the above discussion, but shouldn't the first diagram in the main page show either "2+" for the resultant ion, or "+ e-" to show that only a single electron was lost?  Only a detail, but in its current form the diagram might confuse someone new to the basics. Otherwise a great diagram by the way. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.77.147 (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Both diagrams appear to be correct and show the correct charge balance:{M} + e^- -> {M^{+\bullet}} + 2e^-. The left side is net -1 charge from the electron and the right side is net -1 from the positive ion and two electrons. It might be better if the + indicating the charge and the + for the reaction were different fonts, though --Kkmurray (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Charge balance

message: Why was the forensics application section only limited to detection of medicinal drugs, and highly specific ones at that? Why not discuss current advances and regular applications of EI in the forensics field? Lauren mun (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forensics Discussion 

message: Ionisation by electron impact is a physical process yet this article barely describes that process at all. The bulk of this article describes a single, particular application of electron ionisation, namely in mass spectroscopy. Where is the description of the general physical process of electron interaction with atoms or molecules? This article should either be renamed as 'mass spectroscopy ion source' or something similar or completely rewritten.
212.159.76.165 (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ionisation is a process 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Molecular ion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 8#Molecular ion until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   Jay (Talk) 11:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Molecular ion" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Cleaver (Stone Age tool)

message: This description of a Cleaver-flake is totally wrong. Mainly a cleaver-flake is not a variant of a biface-tool; a hand-axe has nothing to do with a cleaver-flake--Locutus Borg , Talk to me 00:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 
Talk:EN 207

message: Firstly the contribution is a strongly simplified presentation of the standard EN 207 especially for impulse operation. For details see Annex B of the standard.
Secondly is the standard EN 207 is not the only one for laser safety eyewear. There is also EN 208 for laser adjustment eyewear.
Thirdly the basic document is the European PPE directive 89/686/EWG which says that PPE must be approved by an EC Notified Body before being introduced to the EC market. The approval gives the right to the manufacturer to mark the product with the CE sign. The directive also says that testing shall be done by an European harmonized standard, if available.
I appreciate every attempt to explain this complicated matter publicly, however links to manufacturers and fotos of selected manufacturers products shouldn't be presented.
Offenhaeuser 07:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have access to the official documents, please use them to improve the article. I do have the IEC 60825-2 document here (costing about EUR 150!) but not the ones you mention. The best reference that I have is the catalog of a manufacturer that claims to explain the EN 207 standard, which is why I cite this document. This article is about EN 207, not about EN 208, so I am not sure why you complain about EN 208 not being discussed here. Oh, and I don't understand your objection against a picture of goggles with CE marks. Han-Kwang (t) 12:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments on the contribution 

message: Is this meant in the focus point, or raw beam diameter or what? --137.226.66.4 (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximum powerdensity
Talk:Derek J. de Solla Price

message: I don't think I can call myself an expert in the History of Science, but I know something of the field, and have plenty of experience in literature searching and bibliographic work. I've expanded the biography section, using more sources. I've also expanded the publications section and standardised the format of the citations. I'll let you remove the template if you are happy with this. If not, some comments about what is still required would be helpful. Thanks Kognos (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad and grateful to do so! You have done terrific work. I would only suggest that the lead might be expanded beyond the present rather bare paragraph, so that a reader can get a better idea of his life and significance.ch (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert needed 

message: It's not explained correctly - his law is not about the papers written (i.e., physical creation of something), but about citations of papers by authors (i.e., impact). The latter scale, the former not. Also see main article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%27s_model Sschuerger (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price's law
Talk:Live at CBGB 1982

message: Where did someone see a possessive mark on one of the two covers?? I only see a "Live at CBGBOMFUG 1982" on both. Can I rename this page to "Live at CBGB 1982"? Notice that "OMFUG" stand for "Music For Uplifting Gormandizers". Lacrymocéphale 16:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. I will change the title to "Live at CBGB 1982". --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title's '''s''
Talk:The Primitives

message: I'm a fan of The Primitives (which dates me), and agree with the second paragraph of the article. But it does sound awefully like it came from a critic's article, or (more probably) from their record label's publicity (or album liner notes which I have not seen). Anyhow, it perhaps needs a little more objectivity. --Iacobus 00:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just follow the links! The paragraph came from a fan site in the links section. I probably should rewrite some time, if no-one else does. --Iacobus 00:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the paragraph is just plain POV, rather than using weasel words. Anyhow, it is unencyclopedic as it stands. And it probably breaks copyright.--Iacobus 00:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Words 

message: Isn't the statement "Musically speaking they had no equals" pure opinion?....Faren Short  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.193.250 (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Equals?
Talk:Jagdish Kashyap

message: There should be some consistency in the name.  It is Kashyap, Kasyap, Kasyapji or Kashyapji?  --- Skapur 00:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradictory names

message: His student of that time understood a slightly different version of the job status than what was summarised from the history book source. As I don't have access to the book source I simply now give both versions. The 'Sangharakshita' version is lovely prose anyway and not unlikely, so I added the quote completely. Erikdr (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradictory versions of the 1st Benares University Assignment

message: Fixed the Malaysian town, and added a reference to a full three-page biography about him in a Triratna book. Well-researched and has some more details than here in the Wiki. Erikdr (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional reference
Talk:European Geosciences Union

message: I've added the section "Awards" to note the many (>20) science medals issued by the EGU, such as the Milutin Milankovic Medal. That award does not yet have its own page - that would be a good project. These science medals are a good reference for notability. If you don't want every geophysics prof to have a page, noting the winners of these awards is one good screen for who to write up.Birdbrainscan (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Why was the list of EGU publications deleted? I think this list provided very useful information. I do agree that there should be no external links in the text, however, three of the journals had links to their wikipedia pages (ACP, GMD and OS). I don't think these 3 journals should be deleted. Regarding the other 11 journals, maybe they could be reintroduced as red-links (as an incentive to create wikipedia pages for them) but I'm not sure about the wiki policy here.--RolfSander (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of EGU publications 

message: EGU now have a new logo:  TimOsborn (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New EGU logo
Talk:Wayne L. Hubbell

message: I think this article should be titled Wayne L. Hubbell instead of Dr. W.L. Hubbell.  Most scientists and other academics listed on Wikipedia are under their names only, without titles, honorifics or degrees.  See Linus Pauling and Ida Altman for example.  And the UCLA faculty directory lists Dr. Hubbell as Wayne L. Hubbell.  I'll wait before moving the article, however, in case the person who started this article knows of some reason it should be otherwise. -- Muffuletta 00:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just moved it (before I read this).  Seems like an uncontroversial move that follows article naming conventions. VegaDark 09:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of article
Talk:Johnny Eck

message: Wikipedia's policy requires minimal usage of non-free content. Multiple pictures are not necessary to stand as the "Primary means of identifying a notable person". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All right. I will ask for feedback from others. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've nominated three of the five for deletion. – Quadell (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-free images

message: "Born without the lower half of his torso", I guess this is very misleading as he had an underdeveloped one, that he was hiding, not none. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Do we know how recently the project had a reasonable hope of reaching the screen?  Is it still considered viable, as this article seems to suggest? Granttarredus (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of the biopic? 

message: Maybe I'm being nit-picky here, but "Although Eck capitalized on the resemblance between himself and Robert, the twins were fraternal." is a sentence that I think could be re-worded. Twins being fraternal and looking different are not mutually exclusive, especially since identical vs fraternal is a genetic distinction, and not based on interpretation of looks. SnarkyValkyrie (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Life