lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Slippery rail

message: The original version of the article quoted the Wall Street Journal as saying that the cost to Network Rail was $95 million USD.  The article now states that it is £60 million with the $95 million in parentheses.
At the current conversion rate of around $1.90 per pound:
* $95 million equals roughly £50 million and  
* £60 million pounds equals roughly $114 million.
According to Yahoo.com, the exchange rate between the USD and GBP has been greater than that implied by the pairing of £60 million and $95 million since late 2002.  Clearly, the combination of £60 million and $95 million is not correct, but which half is correct, assuming either is?
As I do not have a WSJ subscription, I cannot see the whole article.  Can anyone see what the article itself said so we can understand the correct cost?
Mmccalpin 04:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The stat in the Wall Street Journal article about the UK and specifically Network Rail is US$95 million and doesn't mention pounds and the York Press (UK newspaper) article says the "rail industry" spends £60 million (that stat is repeated in the cited Network Rail press release).  It appears the figures needs to be tweeked (might be my bad).  I'll change it to be a general UK stat and not specifically Network Rail and cite the York Press.  --Oakshade 04:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As for the US currency conversion correction, I came up with about US$116 million (fx conveter at oanda.com).  I'll cite US$115 million as a happy median, but others might choose to tweek that constantly fluid statisttic. --Oakshade 04:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost and Currency Conversion 

message: This poster just is not legible on the Wikipedia page and I am removeing it
Afterbrunel (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't think it's important for the actual poster in the photo to be legible, but that the posting about leaves on the line is present on the train. --Oakshade (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dart Apology Poster

message: Found these while looking up something for Sandite, but they are of relevance here:
*Rail Head Treatment Train (RHTT) in Scotland
*Direct Rail Services RHTT
*2003 Guardian article regarding removal of lineside trees - very informative
EdJogg (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting links, maybe 

message: Are the "ferrous particles" mentioned in the "railhead treatment" section a synonym for iron filings?  I was going to pipelink the phrase to that article, but I'm not quite sure enough that it's the same substance.  Joyous! | Talk 23:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ferrous particles"
Talk:Kordia

message: This article has a mismatched reference:
the first instance of [1] is an external link, pointing to a kordiasolutions.com page (about the formation as subsidiary of TVNZ).
the second instance of [1] is an actual reference to the Orcon acquisition.
I will proceed to change these… :)
-- Jason/Master5o1 (60.234.144.48 10:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mis-matched references 
Talk:Marine Corps Air Station Ewa

message: This page needs to be updated...badly. the last update is two years old.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.143.72 (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Film-makers used stock footage and filmed 'exterior' scenes of this airfield for the John Wayne film 'The Flying Leathernecks' [1951].
Is it worth adding this fact under a 'Trivia' section or something along those lines?
Thru-a-hoop (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a 'Trivia' section? 
Talk:Microquasar

message: The article mentions the average size of a quasar accretion disk to be on the order of a billion square km. However, quick searches suggest that quasar accretion disks are much larger than this - on the order of light days in diameter (50+ billion km). E.g.
https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article/70/5/97/5103885
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aac9bb
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2007/05/aa6283-06.pdf
The milky way is reported to have an accretion disk 25 times larger than the solar system, although this may be using different definitions on the extent of the disk
https://www.realclearscience.com/quick_and_clear_science/2019/06/06/the_milky_ways_supermassive_black_hole_has_an_accretion_disk_thats_25x_larger_than_the_solar_system.html
86.139.229.85 (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accretion disk size
Talk:Clontarf Aboriginal College

message: Victuallers 16:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

message: I've got some WP:OR stuff on boy refugees from Malta 1940's-1950's who were residents at clontarf.  I'll see if I can get some sources to include. . Gnangarra 04:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Refugees
Talk:Intermediate-mass black hole

message: The first line of this article totally contradicts the first line the article to which it also refers the reader, the article on stellar mass black holes  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.126.226 (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: First line

message: Reference 1 appears to have been published by ESA News on Jan 3, 2007 but retrieved on 2006-05-24.
Unless this is the first evidence of somebody able to read into the future, there must be some typing mistake.--Franco3450 (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reading into the future?

message: I'm a bit confused after reading a new article here, seeing the same date of discovery in the article for GCIRS 13E and this new article's HLX-1 object. Are these the same celestial objects, or a coincidence in discovery dates, with HLX-1 still not mentioned in the article? — Northgrove 09:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's a different object. HLX-1 is 20,000 solar masses, while GCIRS 13E is 1,300 solar masses. Also, HLX-1 is a part of ESO 243-49, while GCIRS 13E orbits Sagittarius A*. I'd have to agree with you on saying its pretty unusual for such similar rare objects to be discovered in such a short time frame. DarthBotto talk•cont 20:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The rarity of such objects is conjecture on your part based on very little evidence to support it. They may be rare or they may be much less rare then you think. It's also worth noting that the mass of such objects can often turn out to be wrong on the first guess. But assuming these are 100% accurate  it still doesn't mean that these objects are as rare as you suppose they are.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.182.204.242 (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks for your opinion... Why does this matter, when I simply stated my perspective on a talk page three years ago? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 21:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused over new report 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-star suggests a different, not listed origin for intermediate-mass black holes. - Anon  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.205.199 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: The use of scientific notation in this article is odd.  Usually the point of SI is to prevent unwieldy rows of zeros from occurring.  But there is only one number (109) that to me seems reasonable to shorten that way.  I'm sure I've never seen 100 or 10,000 written as 102 or 104 before.  I'll change it if no one objects.  --Algr (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're referring to "mass in the range 102–105 solar masses" in the opening paragraph, the use of SI units is fine here. There's no hard cut-off point between stellar-mass, intermediate and supermassive BHs; this only refers to an order-of-magnitude range, not strictly 10-100,000. DanTickner (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that is 100 ways of looking at it. Algr (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific notation for 100?
Talk:Treaty of Mendota

message: The "Treaty" section  is generally referenced (here) but from the end of this section there is much content that is not attributed to a source. 
*Values Adjusted For Inflation
*Provisions for assimilating Native Americans
*Contribution to the Dakota War of 1862
While these sections appear to be well written there arises some problems. Excellently written content, without a source, is deemed as original research (OR). While there is a source agreeing (just in title) with content within the section Values Adjusted For Inflation, it is not the job of Wikipedia nor editors to analyze material. A listed reference "Samuel H. Williamson, "Seven Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a U.S. Dollar Amount, 1774 to present," MeasuringWorth, April 2010" (here); would appear to be a source for computation of facts but I did not see such figures represented. The remaining general reference; Meyer, Roy Willard. "History of the Santee Sioux: United States Indian Policy on Trial. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1993", could be for the remaining two sections but I don't know. Otr500 (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unattributed content9
Talk:Trans-Planckian problem

message: I'm not a cosmologist or physicist, but it seems odd and unnatural that this article has no equations:
The Trans-Planckian problem seems to be better defined in the Hawking radiation article, and there are more references (many questioning hawking's math, apparently)
:The trans-Planckian problem is the observation that Hawking's original calculation requires talking about quantum particles in which the wavelength becomes shorter than :the Planck length near the black hole horizon. It is due to the peculiar behavior near a gravitational horizon where time stops as measured from far away. A particle :emitted from a black hole with a finite frequency, if traced back to the horizon, must have had an infinite frequency there and a trans-Planckian wavelength.
rhyre (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can the hawking radiation article be repurposed here? 

message: Could be a simple metric problem based on the expansion of the universe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUHZ2k9DYHY&t=600s
If this is true, an expert should reformulate. 2003:F2:8702:DA25:A519:D848:DD39:8CAC (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  better visualization in the context of the expansion of the universe?
Talk:1 micrometre

message: how can the diameter of a bacterium or a red blood cell, something too small to be seen under most microscopes be approximately the same size as the width of a spider web's thread, which has visible thickness even to the naked eye? something's not quite right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.241.115 (talk • contribs) 
:I had a little check for you, and I think your relative perceptions of the two are inconsistent. On the one hand, Jan Swammerdam observed the shape of red blood cells in the 17th century, which was hardly the pinnacle of microscope technology. On the other, spider webs are especially visible to the naked eye for their diameter; it's much easier to perceive a filament then a point cell. Spider webs are also easier to see because they aren't submerged in fluid, are more reflective and transmissive than blood cells and are subject to effects of diffraction. HTH BigBlueFish 16:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you're right. Duly corrected. BigBlueFish 16:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 2006 topic
Talk:WOMBAT (diffractometer)

message: The article speaks of the instrument being "new" but gives no date. And the external link does not work. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 08:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the external link. Only took 2 years to respond to your comment! :-) -- Levine2112 discuss 20:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  When?
Talk:Heber Valley Railroad

message: See Also: http://www.theonion.com/article/toddler-junkie-immediately-hooked-on-looking-at-tr-32025
That is 618 and the diesel engine pictured on this article. The Onion attributes Harrisburg, PA. Though it IS "fake news" ...
dannyman@toldme.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.255.27.105 (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

message: I moved the page from Heber Valley Historic Railroad to Heber Valley Railroad. Although the railroad is operated by the Heber Valley Historic Railroad Authority, it is simply known as the Heber Valley Railroad (minus the historic). For example,
* The railroad's official website refers to it only as the Heber Valley Railroad, as does the organization's logo and all it's social media accounts.
* The Utah State Rail Plan 2015, created by the state's department of transportation and the operating railroad companies, also refers to it as the Heber Valley Railroad.
* The Federal Railroad Administration refers to the railroad as Heber Valley Railroad Utah [HVRX] (again minus the historic). Such information can be found in several places on the administration's website. One of the best is to find safety documents for crossings on its mainline from this map.
--Beneathtimp (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent page move 

message: Earlier today part of the article said three GP9s had been purchased. As there was no proof of such a purchase occurring, I deleted that part. The next a few minutes ago I found this: http://utahrails.net/utahrails/heber-equipment.php
Although it listed the GP9s, I am not sure if this website makes a good reference. Therefore, I have to ask: does anybody know of any solid evidence of the purchase of those GP9s? Dinoboyaz (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  GP9s 

message: I have heard from a friend that 1218 is no longer on property and hasn't been for several years. There are no public sources on if it was sold or moved, so I am keeping it in the talk page for now until we get proper sources. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  1218 Status
Talk:Reaction calorimeter

message: Physics tag removed as this is clearly not in the realm of physics - It should fall under chemistry or at a push ChemEng.
Patricksears 12:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done that for you Patrick.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Catagories

message: I've put in all the ones I know are available. The market for these is very small (especially with the credit crunch), as they cost so much to buy/run and really need quite specialist staff to run them - hence only the larger chemical companies can afford to buy and run one.  Also I would guess that in most western countries that the potential market is rather saturated.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Available Calorimeters 

message: Is there a source for the categorical name of "Real-time calorimetry"?
Heat flux/flow sensors are commonly used in reaction calorimeters (e.g. ChemiSens CPA201/202 and Mettler Toledo RC1 RTCal), but I have not seen an agreed upon name for this calorimetry method. Also, "Real-time" does not seem appropriate since power compensation calorimetry can also be considered a real-time measurement. --Maximumcoolbeans (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for the name "Real-time calorimetry"?
Talk:The New Rulers of the World

message: I've created a seperate article for the book to avoid confusion. Mutt (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Book/Film

message: I thought it was a documentary film on the consequenses of the globalization.
217.144.240.250 22:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could whoever wrote the above comment please add their user name to the end of the comment, as otherwise our comments will run together and your comment may be mistaken for mine?
just insert a semi-colon ":" in front of your comment and it will be indented like I have done to it now. also you can use three 's (apostrophes) to highlight the initial words in your reply. I am not sure but I think indenting with a semi-colon is the proper wiki syntax/nettiquette.
cheers --217.144.240.250 22:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: On your subject - no, it's a book by Pilger and I have read it myself, though some time ago. I believe it covers a variety of topics, not all globalisation, though someone with the book to hand (not me) may wish to confirm that. abdullahazzam
i don't understand why people say "this movie WAS a documentary...." is every copy of this movie lost and now it's like part of ancient history? the movie is forever! "this movie IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ...." anyways i changed the first sentence, i'm just baffled by the pervasiveness of this error. atom of consumption 06:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The New Rulers of the World
Talk:Sid Vale Association

message: Excellent little article (thanks due to Tad102). 
I've added a few extra bits of information with sources. I'm sure there must be more about the SVA (eg activities - the Which? report on Sidmouth mentioned walks run by the SVA). But that's all I've got time for tonight... Hebrides 22:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My edits
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jikoshia

message: <sarcasm>OMFG!  SPEEDY DELETE THAT BEFORE SOMEONE NOTICES WHAT WE'RE DOING!!!</sarcasm>
Contested prod means someone thought there was a claim of notability.  How about we actually have a discussion on contested prods, huh?   Unfocused 04:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Inelastic collision

message: searching for "inelastic" redirects to the disambiguation page for the word "elastic"  either inelastic collisions should be added to the disambiguation page for "elastic" or a search for "inelastic" should redirect to this article.  I do not know how to do the latter, and am not sure of which course of action should be taken. -aliencam (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "inelastic" redirect 

message: I can't help but notice that several physics and chemistry articles present formulas as though these formulas are infallible and should just be swallowed as is without being understood. There should be an explanation on the principles behind the formula. Micasta (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expound on formulas 

message: "Inelastic collisions may not conserve kinetic energy, but they do obey conservation of momentum. Simple ballistic pendulum problems obey the conservation of kinetic energy only when the block swings to its largest angle."
This is plain wrong.  In a completely inelastic collision, the receiving body absorbs all momentum of the striking body and therefore does not move.  Therefore the resulting momentum is zero as the resultant velocity is zero. Therefore I have clobbered this sentence. The only conservation in an inelastic collision is of total energy.  Kinetic energy AND momentum are not conserved. - Canuck100 11:14, 19 September 2011 (talk)
:It is simply not true that "in a completely inelastic collision, the receiving body absorbs all momentum of the striking body and therefore does not move," as any textbook on the subject will attest. For example:
:*"Let us consider finally a completely inelastic collision. The two particles stick together after collision, so that there will be a final common velocity vf." - Halliday and Resnick in Physics
:*"Perfectly Plastic Imapct. When e = 0 ... both particles stay together after impact. Substituting into Eq. (13.37), which expresses that the total momentum of the particles is conserved. This equation can be solved for the common velocity v' of the two particles after impact." - Beer and Johnston in Dynamics
:Based on these references, I see no option but to restore the original sentence. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inelastic Collisions do not preserve momentum 

message: This is not readily apparent, and in fact contradicts most people's intuition that a molecule is stateless.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:F000:700:9C50:94CD:1953:1DFC (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation required for section that claims molecules undergo inelastic collisions 

message: The external link of the page cannot be found. Should it be removed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.32.251.70 (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link cannot be found
Talk:New Guinean quoll

message: Very nice article --- small problem: 1 kg = 2.2 lbs, not 1 lb = 2.2 kg.
Could someone please include a picture? Thanks! 199.44.18.223 05:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Baju Melayu

message: Since I'll be out of work in a couple of weeks, I am planning to expand on this article. Roughly it's about making section on the Baju Melayu Cekak Musang, the one with Teluk Belanga, and anything else that people usually wear with Baju Melayu, (Samping, Butang Baju Melayu and stuffs). I think it's a good time for people to upload pics of your Hari Raya Baju Melayu and Butang Baju Melayu. :D
--Bukhrin 04:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: yo bruther and sister see my shirt or skirt so many for you and my shirt waiting for you im selling me shirt and skirt selling cheaply come buy quickly come come come  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.16.22 (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  come see my massage
Talk:Uniform circular motion

message: Most of the matheformulas here are not in the standard format which actually can cause some confusion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.114.71 (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formulas

message: We need new pictures here! Ricardo sandoval 02:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures

message: In the version from 22 February 2007 there seems to be a smother explanation of the centripetal force, although it is less formal. I guess for a basic physics article a less demanding demonstration or a more intuitive one is better. Ricardo sandoval 02:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older version
Talk:Treaty of Traverse des Sioux

message: In a series of three edits in a ten-minute period, beginning with this one an IP-account colleague added credible content to the accompanying article, but clearly saved an uncompleted addition in mid-syllable. Some colleagues have since poked at it a bit without ever actually molding a meaningful sentence out of it. It appears the IP has not returned to the topic, and i now excise from the article the portion that i have bolded in the following content, that has gone nearly 4 years without making any sense:
: As the US had promised increased annuity payments in exchange for more land cessions, Chief Red Iron said, "the white settlers started Sioux leaders went to Washington, D.C. in 1858 to sign another pair of treaties; these ceded the reservation north of the Minnesota River.--Jerzy•t 05:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of uncompleted fragment of long-festering edit 

message: The article fails to provide the Nicollet map used by the United States to delineate the tribal lands being ceded.  That map was produced for the War Department and published by the U.S. Senate. The article fails to inform that the map caused problems with the Yankton band who were not present.  The treaty sold land the Yankton claimed.  The treaty used the Big Sioux/Tchankasndata River as the Yankton border when the Yankton claimed all the land between the river and the Pipestone quarry in Minnesota.  The Yankton claim necessitated the Yankton Treaty of April 1858 in order that Minnesota be "claim free" for Statehood in May 1858.  The very first sentence of the Yankton Treaty addresses the Yankton claims stemming from the Treaty of Traverse des Sioux.  The Yankton refused to sign without the provision of a reservation at the Pipestone that they were granted. Mcb133aco (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are you getting the information about the Yankton band? Cielquiparle (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue