lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Clarence Hiskey

message: This biography of Clarence Hiskey is rather superficial, given the prevalence of Leftists. He was an accomplished chemist, and taught at the Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute, but teaching is no way support a family. I knew Nick Sand. Nick told me he learned large scale pharmaceutical manufacturing from his dad when he worked at Endo Pharmaceutical in New Jersey (endo.com) Endo manufactures generics, its product catalog is here: http://www.parpharm.com/products/product-catalog.php 
Nick Sand was more than a chemist. He was an accomplished chemical engineer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Relguan (talk • contribs) 01:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarence Hiskey father of Nick Sand 
Talk:Clarence Kolb

message: I have removed the "Mabel Kolb" listing on the "Spouse" line in the infobox. May Cloy's real name was Mabel Sarah Larsen, so "Mable Kolb" is just a different name for the same wife. Eddie Blick (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spouse
Talk:Adherent point

message: The changes made by Deepmath in August 2009 makes the definition of adherent point incompatible with the definition of limit point in Limit point. Deepmath's definition is also incompatible with the definition in Apostol's Mathematical Analysis that I have in front of me.
:I agree that this needs to be changed back to the way it was before. An adherent point of a set is a point in the closure of the set, that's all. What's described here is a cluster point, or accumulation point. 216.239.65.157 (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree also, and have correct the definition. Paul August ☎ 19:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect definition

message: I added the "intuition"-sentence, as it would have saved me quite some time. I Would appreciate if someone verified it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.167.126 (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intuition
Talk:Claude Beck

message: Some suggestions for improvement as the article is expanded:
*Template:Infobox Scientist should be added 
*Photograph should be added from a source with a free license, if available
*Some basic biographical information required, including precise date of birth, more details of positions held
*Lead needs expanding to cover all aspects of subject's life
*Main text of article should be divided into appropriate subheadings
*Information on research should be expanded
*References should be expanded; full citation details are needed for the key papers
*External links present which could be used to expand article
Espresso Addict 20:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Review comments
Talk:Carleman's inequality

message: The inequality is established by applying AM-GM and other estimates to finitely many reals, and taking the limit for an infinite sequence. However, the equality condition does not necessarily transfer (not true that \lim a = \lim b implies a_i=b_i \forall i.) Thus, AM-GM alone can't show that the inequality is strict for a convergent series.
Riemannzeta5 (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof given of equality condition seems incorrect
Talk:Central binomial coefficient

message: I added a simple lower bound to the page. It's not the most accurate, but it's elegant, easy to prove, and it's a lot better than the bound used for the proof of Bertrand's postulate. A proof of this bound (aside from Stirling's formula) can be found at http://foolproof.pbwiki.com/Central+Binomial+Coefficient+Minimum . -Xylune (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful Bounds 

message: For
:\binom{2n}{n} = (-1)^n 4^n \binom{-1/2}{n}
can we write
:\binom{2n}{n} = 4^n \binom{n-1/2}{n}
instead. It's not as intuitive as -\tfrac12 from \frac1{\sqrt{1-x}}, but does eliminate the double minus.
Darcourse (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving notation
Talk:Where's God When I'm S-Scared?

message: Main text of the article says Bob reads the letter, but Trivia section says something about the letter being read by the letter writer.  I'll have to play the tape at home this weekend to check, but I thought I remembered Bob actually bouncing over to the letter and reading it.
The other problem I notice has to do with the song credits.  "Fear Not, Daniel" may not be sung by the narrator.  I seem to remember Lisa Vischer credited as Female Soloist for that segment.  The narrator (who I thought was excellent) was a different person.  Again, if someone can verify this and fix it before I have a chance to actually watch the video and double check my memory, have at it!BSMet94 19:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've watched it recently.  Bob goes over and says "It says:", and then a girl's voice is heard saying "Dear Bob and Larry, I am 6 years old.  I think there are monsters in my closet.  That makes me real scared.  Can you help me?"  --TimySmidge 22:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couple of minor problems 
Talk:Claude Lancaster

message: This is the same person as "Juby" Lancaster, right? He was also a colonel and a Tory MP of the era.Paulturtle (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

message: "In 1924 Captain Lancaster inherited Kelmarsh Hall" although this is referenced although not viewable his father died in 1907. The "Essex Newsman" local paper reported on 25 May 1907 that "Kelmarsh Hall Estate and all other his real and personal estate he settled on his son Claude Granville Lancaster and his heirs male". MilborneOne (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Kelmarsh Hall
Talk:Claude Piel

message: Some suggestions for improvement as the article is expanded:
*Appropriate infobox should be added 
*Photograph should be added from a source with a free license, if available
*Needs some copy editing into Wikipedia style and internal links adding
*Some basic biographical information required, including precise dates of birth/death, place of birth, positions held with dates, etc
*Lead needs expanding and should emphasise reasons for notability of subject
*Main body of article should be divided into appropriate subheadings
*Information on work should be expanded
*References should be expanded and preferably converted to inline format
*External links may need pruning, as discussion forums are not usually suitable
Espresso Addict 02:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Review comments
Talk:Computational indistinguishability

message: The link to Jonathan Katz page point to the wrong Jonathan Katz I think.
I don't know how to correct this since no page exists for him.
Sorry for my misused of this page I don't have time to read the talk page
guidelines.
92.136.82.216 (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Gah has it really taken five years for anyone to notice this comment and do something about it?!?? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jonathan Katz link 

message: Rafael Pass PhD thesis, Chapter 2: Preliminaries, page 26:
The following definition of (computational) indistinguishability originates in the seminal paper of Goldwasser and Micali [33].
[33] S. Goldwasser and S. Micali. Probabilistic Encryption. JCSS, Vol. 28, No 2, pages 270–299, 1984. Nerf5646 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other useful resources
Talk:Steve Marchand

message: What sources were used?--Donatello08 03:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None so far, so I've tagged it. Bearian 16:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've cleaned up somewhat by removing sections or paragraphs with no footnotes. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: References
Talk:John Sebastian Marlowe Ward

message: The article is contradictory. Was he ordained in the Church of England or not? 
Itsmejudith 21:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordained in CofE? 

message: I didn't want to go straight ahead and edit this in case someone didn't want it, but I am just suggesting adding an infobox on John Ward. I don't know if its ok but below is just an example.
*(Lunashy (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 
Talk:Dense-in-itself

message: This article is an example of what can go wrong when a Wikipedia article is simply copied from another source (in this case, PlanetMath).
The result in this case is the the Wikipedia article is somewhere between impossible to understand, and wrong (it's hard to tell where).
Here is the beginning of the article:
"In mathematics, a subset A of a topological space is said to be dense-in-itself if A contains no isolated points.
"Every dense-in-itself closed set is perfect. Conversely, every perfect set is dense-in-itself.
"A simple example of a set which is dense-in-itself but not closed (and hence not a perfect set) is the subset of irrational numbers. This set is dense-in-itself because every neighborhood of an irrational number x contains at least one other irrational number . On the other hand, this set of irrationals is not closed because every rational number lies in its closure. For similar reasons, the set of rational numbers is also dense-in-itself but not closed."
Never mentioned, but apparently playing a big role here, is the set of real numbers.  It is only in relation to the set of real numbers that it is obvious the last sentence, about the set of irrational numbers, is true.  
So the article should make crystal clear that "Given a topological space X and a subspace A, then [etc., etc.]."  And the last sentence should say something like "The irrational numbers, considered as a subspace of the reals, [etc., etc.]."
For, there are many topological spaces X for which the space J of irrational numbers (with the subspace topology from the reals) forms a closed subspace of X. (E.g., consider X = J itself.)Daqu (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if that's really a *serious* problem.  It's an easy fix to make the language a little more rigorous, and I think the intent is clear.  In any sense, it's easy to fix.Rodya mirov (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has a serious problem
Talk:Werner Baumbach

message: WikiProject Biography Assessment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 19:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: The article relies on self-published sources & one from an extremist publisher VDM Heinz Nickel. I tagged the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag
Talk:Dini derivative

message: This is the first I've ever seen the triangle symbol.  I am a professional mathematician.  Maybe it is sufficiently uncommon that the article should say what it is.   147.129.213.113 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm deleting them. Staecker (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assignment Equality (triangle symbol)
Talk:Clemens Winkler

message: Is Clemens Winkler connected to the discoverer of the Winkler method for measuring dissolved oxygen? - Astrochemist (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winklers 
Talk:Distribution (differential geometry)

message: I added the section on generalized distributions, but perhaps this should be a separate page.  Does anyone know a good reference apart from the original papers of Stefan and Sussmann? Simplifix (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Generalized distributions

message: If this distribution has nothing to do with the usual mathematical sense of distribution, then why the name? Cesiumfrog (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many senses of the word “distribution” in mathematics. The distributions in this article here have nothing to do with the better known ones from probability theory and functional analysis. 2800:200:E840:356E:C75:C5F:D434:A5F1 (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: The article says that the vector fields X_1, \ldots, X_k form a local basis for a distribution \Delta \subset TM on an open U \subset M if the vectors X_1(p), \dots, X_k(p) span \Delta_p for every p \in U. Is this standard terminology? This seems strange to me, because X_1(p), \dots, X_k(p) are not required to be linearly independent, but elsewhere in linear algebra a basis is required to be linearly independent. I would call X_1, \dots, X_k a “local generating set” or something like that.
If \Delta has a bona fide local basis around each point p \in M, then \Delta is actually a vector subbundle of TM. Of course, every vector subbundle of TM is a distribution, but the converse is not true. 2800:200:E840:356E:C75:C5F:D434:A5F1 (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I adjusted the wording to resolve this. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imprecise definition? 

message: seriously? a wikipedia entry about mathematics that says "of course" twice? is this a journal paper or wikipedia? 151.100.59.194 (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. I'll remove it. (It's supposed to be obvious, if you understood the rest of what the text said.) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "of course"
Talk:Domain of holomorphy

message: The statement "we can define a holomorphic function with zeros accumulating everywhere on the boundary of the domain, which must then be a natural boundary for a domain of definition of its inverse" looks strange, since the function is not injective and so does not have an inverse. --Stomatapoll (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what's meant is that the reciprocal function g(z) = \frac{1}{f(z)} cannot be extended beyond \Omega, since it has a dense set of singularities on the boundary. I'll replace inverse with reciprocal to make it clearer.--71.205.130.248 (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there an inverse?
Talk:Clement Scott

message: Claim of authorship needs credible citation. Also, "Now is the Hour" was not based on traditional NZ melody. This is established fact.Theodore D (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it was not, in fact, based on a traditional Maori melody, and I've clarified that issue, based on the Time (magazine) article. As to authorship, I understand that there is someone who challenges the authorship, claiming to be related to someone who used the pseudonym "Clement Scott", but the New Zealand folk song website entry does not read as rigorous research and also seems to be copied from elsewhere on the web. I originally put this information here based on the Scowcroft "Garland".  Scowcroft is usually reliable, but I agree that here his research does not seem persuasive. Is there a newspaper article, or scholarly article, or anything in a WP:Reliable source that clarifies that it is not this Clement Scott?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  To have conclusive evidence my be out of the question, for now. The best we can do is make it clear in the relevant articles that authorship is questionable, or at least open to debate. There is this Theodore D (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

text: OK, thanks.  I added your new ref and described the disputed authorship, and also tried to clean up the issue at Now Is the Hour.  See if you agree with my edits. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Now Is the Hour]]

message: "His style of criticism, acerbic, flowery and (perhaps most importantly) carried out on the first night of productions, set the standard for theatre reviewers through to today." - perhaps most importantly what? There's a word missing. It has been missing since the article was first written. Perhaps most importantly accurate? Perhaps most important witty? What? 143.159.185.234 (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is correct.  What was most important was that he reviewed shows on opening night, which was not usual for critics in those days. This is expanded upon in the second paragraph under the heading "Style, controversies and influence" below in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening lines
Talk:Essential infimum and essential supremum

message: I will add the equivalent characterization in terms of functions g = f a.e. as soon as my dumb ass can reprove the equivalence.--128.171.31.11 (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equivalent Characterization 

message: Maybe a remark that this is not defined for functions with values in ℂ ? or is it? Noix07 (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not, and it's not worth remarking on it. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Values in C?

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: moved per request.  Favonian (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Essential supremum and essential infimum →  – For consistency with Infimum and supremum. This is both the alphabetical order and the order from smaller to greater. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 February 2021 

message: Is there a standard definition for essential supremum along the lines of the definition of  (supremum norm) as ?  If you know of it, would you add it? 66.194.253.20 (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  In terms of p-norms
Talk:Filtered algebra

message: Why do we have articles called Filtered algebra and Graded ring, but not Filtered ring or Graded algebra?  We should probably talk about filtered and graded algebras over a commutative ring, which is the most general situation.  All the basic theory works at that generality. John Baez (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

message: The redirect Filtered ring has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  1234qwer1234qwer4 17:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Filtered ring]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Spiritual intelligence

message: I agree with the critics. In the academic litterature you will not encounter anything remotely related to this topic. The closests you get to an academic is an author as Danah Zohar. It is pseudoscientific new age theories. Doubleblinded studies etc. imo isn't an infallible criteria for something being scientific. Logic, mathematics, philosophy, theoretical physics and every subcategory within those fields are respectable disciplines. The content of this article preys on misconceptions about philosophy and psychology. It should be either deleted or merged.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.163.36.197 (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This entire article is very strange. What does "spiritual" mean? It should be defined at the top of the article. Does it have something to do with spirits? The spirituality page refers to "God," but that word isn't defined either. Does it mean that if you don't believe in a supernatural being in the sky (or other kinds of supernatural beings) that you lack some kind of intelligence? Let99 (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

message: I just searched 3 databases of academic journals for "spiritual intelligence" and "spiritual quotient" and came up with nothing.  Maybe you could cite the journals/papers?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razarax (talk • contribs) 21:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to merge this article

message: The sharpbrains.com link has been spammed across wikipedia by editors that have been warned multiple times and have yet to respond to these warnings.  Please see WP:EL and WP:SPAM before considering restoring it.  Thanks! --Ronz 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: sharpbrains.com

message: As noted above is a brochure for those who sell related items. Will trim. History2007 (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The article is a promo piece
Talk:Cleveland Williams

message: Is "tragically killed" an appropriate tone for an encyclopedia (vs "killed")?  I'm pretty sure it's not appropriate and I want to be bold... but I feel that I may be out of line here, I find it best to tread lightly when it comes to people getting killed.  71.48.145.157 (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Why are they listed in the European style when the fighter was an American?? Why are the months first? This is terribly confusing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.78.180 (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding dates of fights 

message: Currently the article states that this statement needs a citation. "George Foreman interviewed post retirement recalled Williams as one of the three hardest punchers he had been with, stating they had sparred when George was a rising boxer." This claim occurred on the David Letterman show after the fight with Gerry Cooney. A current YouTube link is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmG_gR576EA
Raoulduke25 (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Foreman's claim about Williams' punching strength 

message: The fight history section only goes up to 78 wins. Where are his other 2 wins?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.71.134 (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  80 wins?
Talk:Cliff Arquette

message: I have added the one record I still have (I gifted the previous shorter version of this record but if anyone is interested I know it is out there somewhere). I would very much like to hear from anyone who knows yet more about his records. I also noted that he was a regular on the Jack Parr Show and this is not covered well in the article. 71.150.253.188 (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography 

message: not geographically, for you literalists
208.127.106.233 (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did "Charley Weaver" come from? 

message: Conspicuously absent from the list of Mr. Arquette's credits is his role as 'the Old Timer' on the Fibber McGee and Molly radio program.  The character was similar to Charley Weaver and the usual 'schtick' was that Jim Jordan, as Fibber, would tell a joke or make a humorous comment, and the Old Timer would reply, "Well, that's pretty good, Johnny, but that ain't the way I heerd it.  The way I heerd it was...", then tell a completely unrelated joke.  The Old Timer role was later taken over by Bill Thompson, who also played Wallace Wimple on the show.76.195.220.193 (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Old Timer 

message: In the 'Charley Weaver' it says the character was created in  1959, yet the picture just to the right of this text is dated 1951. Does any one know which, if either is correct? Mike L Smith (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date discrepancy 