lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:SuperNova (firearm)

message: Merge - should be merged, identical articles. PianoKeys 14:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: I removed the speedy delete +tag because this shotgun exists. PianoKeys 10:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It exists, but it is not notable, and this page is mere advertising for it. DES (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, put it to an afd, not a speedy. PianoKeys 19:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, will do. Note that I could simply delete, an admin doesn't have to wait for someone else to tag. But as a matter of personal policy, i don't do that. DES (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And I can Appeal and I would do that. PianoKeys 23:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed you could. The AfD route is better -- i have taken it. If the consensus of the editors who commetn is to keep this, so be it. If you want it kept, you might be well advised to find non-trivial independant sources that attest to the notability of this, and add citations of them to the article. The presence or absence of such sources often has a large effect on the outcome of AfD debates. DES (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy +tag
Talk:Denis Donoghue (rugby league)

message: For a bloke who only played two Tests for Australia there are a lot superlatives in this article.
"toughest". "most brutal". "best front rowers" "greatest ever' "peerless". It reeks of a lack of neutrality.Could we please have some citations as to who it is that has rated him so highly plus also a source for the Ken Gee quote.-Sticks66 14:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:No Good Deed (song)

message: I have read somewhere that, as the songs were written before casting Elphaba, No Good Deed was written with Eden Espinosa's vocal style and range in mind as opposed to Defying Gravity, which was written with Idina's in mind.  I've looked but can't find this info now.  Anyone heard this before?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.116.132 (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Written for?
Talk:Karen Leigh King

message: When discussing the Jesus wife issue, use Ms. King's paper.  A PDF of a draft is on the Harvard website.  Don't use mass media articles which historically publish misleading info under titles designed to grab eyeballs rather than represent the information.  The person credited with the article is not a religious studies expert, a Christian texts expert, or an expert in the Coptic language.  Ms. King at least consulted experts on authenticating the papyrus and its language.
108.45.122.74 (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand where you're coming from but that's not really how Wikipedia works. Have a read of WP:PRIMARY. King's paper, released as part of the package with the papyrus in question, would likely be considered a Primary Source. These can be used (from the policy) - "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.". In this case, we have a Secondary Source that interprets the Primary Source so that has been included. There would be no problem also including the Primary Source given its interpretation has been verified. Have a read of WP:OR for a broader explanation. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do everybody a favor 
Talk:Moydow

message: The following coordinate fixes are needed for Moydow , County Longford . ireland
—77.99.161.19 (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: . Deor (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error 
Talk:Reduction (computability theory)

message: This article uses "bounded reducibility" to refer to a reduction which has a finite constant bound on the number of oracle queries. Soare (at least in his forthcoming book) uses "bounded Turing" to mean a Turing reduction with computably bounded use - i.e., synonymously with wtt reduction. A Google search returns, in addition to this article, some complexity theory papers talking about specific computable use bounds (eg polytime), one reference to a constant number of queries bound, and a few references to computably bounded use. Any proposed resolutions to the collision? skeptical scientist (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bounded reducibilities"
Talk:Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council

message: The NSERC USRA does not have to be the in summer, and it can be also held immediately after graduating. See: http://www.nserc.gc.ca/sf_e.asp?nav=sfnav&lbi=1a
74.105.155.58 14:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:North Adelaide Football Club

message: The Roosters have a new Logo, I dont know how to put pictures on the page so could someone pleae get the new logo and replece the old one on this page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.209.197 (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo
Talk:Healing, Lincolnshire

message: This article does not conform to NPOV. Josh 14:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewrote controversial parts of article. Still unsure about the "charming place" part, but seems to do okay for now. Josh 15:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 
File talk:Torre Agbar - Barcelona, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg

message: ...or does that building look like a giant....--293.xx.xxx.xx 14:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just you. --66.xx.xxx.xx 17:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  At least it's been pixellated (look at the windows) Tar7arus 17:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: A giant rusted artillery shell? 76.29.2.23 20:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it just me..... 

message: why is it featured? all it is just high res, its isn't very dynamic or particularly interesting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.170.119 (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  featured?
Talk:Just Like Me (Paul Revere & the Raiders song)

message: Is it just me, or is the melody a rip-off of The Who's "Can't explain?" They were both singles released in '65.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.8.169.242 (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

message: Is it just me, or is the melody a copycat of "Can't Explain" by The Who? They were both released as singles in 1965. 96.8.169.242 (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sounds like...WHO?
Talk:Q.E.D. (manga)

message: look, if you haven't read this manga/watched the tv series, don't remove any thing from the article.
:As there are no references, I have edited the article based upon what is verifiable. Admittedly, online references are scant, so further editing would be best undertaken by readers of the manga.--Soulparadox 19:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Article
Talk:Luman Hamlin Weller

message: This article was started using public domain information from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. LarryQ 15:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Dihedron

message: Recently removed:
Cantellation? —Tamfang (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, it should be rr{n,2} = {n}×{}: t{n,2} is just {2n,2}. Double sharp (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Hmmm... Cantellation isn't usually applied across 2 branches. t{2,n} works better, or a bitruncation from a dihedron as 2t{2,n}. Tom Ruen (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps so, but it does work: if you imagine taking r{n,2} and bevelling the edges, each edge turns into a square, and the hemispherical polygons shrink, creating an n-gonal prism. We should probably list both constructions. Double sharp (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

text: r{n,2}={n,2}, another reason rr is problematic. Tom Ruen (talk) 11:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right: we ought to use t0,2 then, I guess? Double sharp (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd stick with t{2,n}, truncated hosohedra as Coxeter expresses, and just leave the dihedrons in peace. Or say a dihedron is a degenerate prism with height of zero (it already says that).  -->  -->   = n-gon. Tom Ruen (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  truncation or what 

message: It seems to me that if a dihedron is seen as a prism with zero height, then there are two degeneracy interpretations possible. Each side face become either a digon or single edge. So the regular form has 2 faces, n edges and vertices, while a uniform solution could have 2 n-gons and n 2-gonal faces, and 2n edges, and n vertices. This sort of topological problem also exists in alternation of polygons with even number of sides where squares are reduced either to digons or edges. There can be reasons to keep digons, and the Euler characteristic is unchanged since you're adding or removing n faces and n edges. 
Anyway, I admit I've not read anything to support this specifically, or it is here I guess Digon#Theoretical significance. And it could apply in any polyhedron, replacing any edge with 2 edges and a digon between. It is important for hosohedra which do have digon faces since Coxeter uses t{2,n} =  for a special case wythoff construction of uniform prisms for both spherical tilings and polyhedra. But you could argue better antipodal point digons are more real since they make spherical lunes. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  As a degenerate prism
Talk:Dimension of an algebraic variety

message: the article needs to be edited in one of the following two ways: 
1. add the assumption that the field K is algebraically closed.
2. explain that some of the definitions are only equivalent if K is algebraically closed (or what definition of "variety," "algebraic set," etc. is being used).
I prefer approach (1).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.179.145.222 (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard definition of "point of an algebraic variety" is "point with coordinates in an algebraically closed field". This is this standard definition that is implicitly used here. I agree that saying it explicitly is better. It would also be better to say that the dimension does not change if the field K is enlarged or its algebraically closed extension is changed. Also a section about the real dimension (the dimension of the set of real points) would be useful. I have implemented all these clarifications. D.Lazard (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Field of definition
Talk:Telecomsoft

message: These guys developed both Underwurlde and Nightshade for the c64  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.142.84 (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Games

message: I'm not sure about the prices of firebird gold, checking old magazines it show that the list price was f9.95. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Magallanes (talk • contribs).
: Tagged as "citation needed". Fourohfour 15:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Price

message: I'm querying the "as well as a publishing deal with C64 developer Denton Designs." part. Denton Designs are well known and highly regarded publishers of ZX Spectrum games. So I found the reference to them as just "C64 developer" a little weird. I don't know much about the C64 scene back then or today in retrospect, so not sure whether their C64 reputation was as high or higher than their ZX Spectrum reputation. Basically, citation required! I'd suggest just dropping "C64", or perhaps, since they published games on C64, Amstrad CPC and ZX Spectrum, maybe the term "8-bit games developer" instead of "C64 developer" is more accurate. Though, colloquially "software house" feels a more adept description.  Isofarro (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Denton Designs "C64 Developer"
Talk:Diophantine set

message: Is there a reference for the assertion in Note 3 of the article, "the mathematical community has moved to calling the equivalence result the MRDP theorem or the Davis-Putnam-Robinson-Matiyasevich theorem." Stephanwehner (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if the "MRDP" name is used anywhere, but the (long) history of the result (and the contributions of each of the four) is discussed in the first ref given in Hilbert's tenth problem—Barry Cooper's Computability Theory. A quick google search suggests that Manin's A Course in Mathematical Logic for Mathematicians  uses this name for the theorem (on p. 207, but not abbreviating their names to the initial though); this was the 1st hit, there are others, e.g. , which has preview in GB. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Martin Davis uses MRDP here and some independent sources do as well  . Tijfo098 (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

text: “MRDP theorem” is commonly used in my experience, but I’m not sure this is as universal a convention as the note suggests. (The note could also make use of some punctuation.)—Emil J. 12:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I've also heard MRDP theorem.  I don't know if it's preferred, but it should at least be mentioned.  I'll add something. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference ? 

message: Strangely, I do not see it  here. See for instance Matiyasevich, Chapter 4. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal Diophantine set
Talk:Woodford, New South Wales

message: * Professor Edgeworth David had a house in Woodford.
* A transit of Venus (approx 1880) was observed from Woodford. (There was a display about this at the Academy; maybe it is still there).
* There was a convict camp at Bull's Camp (?) just east of Woodford.
I know these things because I lived in Woodford during the 1960s — so I cannot give proper citations. But someone may be able to find some. m.e. (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woodford facts
Talk:Dirichlet beta function

message: The formula for beta(s) in terms of the polygamma function only seems to be valid at even positive integers. I believe multiplying this formula by (-1)^s makes it valid at odd positive integers as well as even positive integers. The conditions for the validity of the polygamma formula for beta(s) need to be specified or the reader may assume the formula is valid for all complex values of s similar to the two preceding formulas which express beta(s) in terms of the Hurwitz zeta function and the Lerch transcendent.StvC (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition
Talk:Dirichlet boundary condition

message: Is the redirect to the movie Zoolander really necessary? I removed it. --Oerms (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

message: First bullet in intro says "In held fixed in space, where an end of a beam is held at a fixed position in space." This isn't grammatical English, and I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean, so I can't edit it.  The other bullets have "In <Plural Noun>", so maybe this should be s.t. like "In physical situations where one end of a lever is held fixed in space."  But I dunno, I just know it doesn't make sense as-is.  Mcswell (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  held fixed 

message: In mechanical engineering (beam theory), where one end of a beam is held at a fixed position in space.  Seems to me that for real Dirichlet boundary conditions, you want both ends fixed.  You could have mixed boundary conditions, some combination of Dirichlet and Neumann.  Gah4 (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beam theory
Talk:On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances

message: The paper is available online from Gallica (Bibliothèque nationale de France) here, as is the French translation by Le Chatelier here. Cheaper than $1000 for just the abstract! Physchim62 (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual, Google books has lots of interesting information. There are books that discuss the reactions of Wan der Waals, and Maxwell, as well as many history books that discuss the work, and the proceedings of a symposium held at Yale on the 150 anniversary of Gibbs' birth. --Itub 08:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work: --Sadi Carnot 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online sources
Talk:Houston Gay Pride Parade

message: restarted this article, put in redirect, added to categories, needs further info.--Hourick 16:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: adding some news reports might help. Benjiboi 21:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but since I'm not gay and honestly don't pay attention enough to the subject, I was hoping someone that would be more dilligent about it would take the lead while I would update when I would come up with relevant information.--Hourick 22:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a relevant article but not likely to get a huge excitement level going. Most of the pride parade articles are pretty small but I think as is - is fine for now. Will keep a watch though. Benjiboi 23:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restart 

message: I am involved in an effort to write a history of the Pride Parade in Houston. I can firstly help by providing the names of honorary grand marshals and such from the Pride Guides for each year. Each Guide also has a brief biography of each Grand Marshal which I am willing to type up. Some are better than others. I am very new to wikipedia and am going to study up on things. I don't trust myself to edit anything. One thing I noticed is that the link on Marvin Davis (1991 Grand Marshal) leads to an article about someone who is not the same man. Augieduncan 23:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings. If the link is to the wrong person then edit the brackets off. For the bios they are more appropriate to articles about those people so might not help this article. If in your research you do come across news articles or good references about parade size, economic impact, how many people attended, was it televised, etc then please add those. Also any significant changes in the how the parade was managed or perceived by the LGBT or general public is also useful. Benjiboi 00:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the Pride Parade in Houston 
Talk:Discrete exterior calculus

message: FEEC is not part of DEC, although many people mismatch this. DEC is as different from FEEC as, e.g, FDM is from FEM. --212.201.75.122 (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the record: Finite element exterior calculus is not DEC 
Talk:Discretization error

message: when we define the derivative of f(x) as f'(x) = lim h->0 [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h
or f'(x) is approximately equal to [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h, where h is a finitely small number.
The difference between the first formula and this approximation is known as discretization error.
Rk158903 (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

message: Discretization Error
Real number has an important property called density property that says that  between any two real number there is a another real number .and so on to infinity
if a and b are two real number then there exist another real number c which is equal to (a+b)/2.and also there exist another real number d which equal to (a+c)/2and so on to infinity.
this is in mathematics but in computation it is different we cannot say that there is a line we theoretically contains an infinite number of steps instead we have a something called grid or lattice or mesh .
Quantization Errors
It is errors arises due the limitation of floating point representation , it is two types truncation error and round off error.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedlasheen (talk • contribs) 11:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between Discretization Errors and Quantization Errors
Talk:Discriminant of an algebraic number field

message: Hi. I've rewritten this article in my sandbox. Unless there are any objections, I'd like to replace the current version with this rewrite on Sunday. So, any objections? -- RobHar (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you waiting? Be bold, if anyone objects they will let you know. Great work BTW, looks like a proper article now.—Cronholm144 19:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. So I've replaced the article with my rewrite. It was suggested I expand the lead, so I added a paragraph. I should probably also add a small section (on counting discriminants of number fields) now, so I'll do this over the next few days. RobHar (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 
Talk:Stark conjectures

message: Manin's textbook "Introduction to Modern Number Theory" introduces two papers about the relationship between non-commutative geometry and Stark conjecture.
*"Von Zahlen und Figuren" http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0201005.pdf
*"Real Multiplication and noncommutative geometry" http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0202109.pdf
--Enyokoyama (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Manin's proposal 
Talk:Disjoint union (topology)

message: Given \varphi_i : X_i \to X\,, the image of a point x cannot be a pair (x,i) as the latter is not an element of X.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.157.48 (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canonical injection 

message: I thought "direct sum" implies product topology, and not the disjoint union. -  Subh83 (talk | contribs) 22:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  direct sum?
Talk:Starrett City

message: A lot has happened since 2007, particularly the 2009 preservation transaction.  I have updated some information about the property as it now exists, and information about the preservation transaction and its consequences.  I am associated with one of the advisers on the transaction.
AlexJ7 (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated Information 

message: Boundaries? Origin of name? Bordering neighborhoods? Seems like basic and essential information for any neighborhood  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.228.246 (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero discussing of neighborhood boundaries?
Talk:BK Crown Jewels line

message: I work for bk in nz and just to let you know that they May have discotinued the Craker Jack and the blazing saddle! Its not on the menu boards anymore :) thanks. 121.72.236.247 (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing 

message: Burger King NZ has discontinued the crown Jewels Line in new zealand. I work for bk and stuff. I'v edited the article and stuff. May need proper editing done thanks!121.72.236.247 (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discotuned
Talk:Dissection problem

message: What does it mean to dissect a honecomb (such as cube) into a honecomb? —Tamfang (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what it means is that the funamental domains of periodic honeycombs can be dissected into each other. E.g. a cube is the fundamental domain for one honeycomb, the truncated octahedron is the fundamental domain for a different honeycomb, so there is a dissection from a cube to a truncated octahedron. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  honeycombs
Talk:Distance-regular graph

message: The sentence "... such that for any two vertices v and w at distance i, the number of vertices adjacent to w and the number of vertices at distance j from v is the same." is unclear -- are i and j chosen a-priori, or does it mean that, given v and w (with a particular distance from one-another), we can find some j for which the number of vertices at distance j from v is the same as the number of vertices adjacent to w?  The sentence could use some re-wording if so, to make clear that there is perhaps only one value among many of j for which this equality will be satisfied.  Furthermore, if this is a correct interpretation, then there is really no need to refer to i at all, since we can simply state that v and w have a fixed distance between them.
24.11.104.3 (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Now linked to Degree (graph theory) where it is defined. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)