lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Seven-segment display character representations

message: Hello, could the original poster of the text examples please include the name of/link to the specific media player in question? Or was it a software player?--Wernher 07:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Which (portable?) media player?

message: I'd love to know when seven-segment displays first appeared? Who made them? Who devised them?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffSmith79 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The current revision says, "Two basic conventions can be seen for Arabic numerals: one lights the additional segment in 6 (segment A), 7 (F) and 9 (D); the other, more anglophone one does not. Military, mission critical, and safety-of-life applications prefer the latter. The idea is to use a display font where a single burned out or missing segment in a digit will not display as a different valid digit."
So, we don't want to have 9 display with segment D, because then a dead segment E would fail to distinguish 8 and 9.  Makes sense.  Except that now a dead segment A will fail to distinguish 4 and 9.  Am I missing something?  Joule36e5 (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Robustness

message: Does such a page exist for a 16 segment display?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomforyou (talk • contribs) 00:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently it does: Sixteen-segment display.  Although I've never seen that before; the most similar thing I've seen is a Fourteen-segment display (which is basically the same but with the top and bottom horizontal bars non-broken). --Cousteau (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  16 seg display? 

message: I think the pictures for each characater are too big;  one can't see the glyph without leaning back and squinting a bit to blur it together.  They're far bigger than the accompanying text.  I'd have thought trying them 50% would be worthwhile to see if it's an improvement. -- Ralph Corderoy (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures too big 

message: 101.108.116.14 (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2018
Talk:Chinese Trinidadians and Tobagonians

message: Please discuss page moves first.  Thanks.  Guettarda (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 
Talk:Area codes 617 and 857

message: The titles should be changed to reflect the USA nature of the articles, as in US Area codes 617 and 857. As it is, it's impossible to tell from which area they are. Too specific to a country, not looking like an international encyclopedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.52.53.165 (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Generic Problems About the Project

message: A lot of the zip codes in the chart are wrong. Specifically, those beginning with 021-- were changed a few years ago to 024--, although some 021-- zip codes remain. I will look into this to see if I can find a "source-able" better list: if anyone has a source, please share! -ReuvenkT C 07:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Zip Code Errors

message: Many exchanges which are listed in the article as Not used are actually cell phone exchanges.  For instance, my cell number starts 617-230-xxxx, and it was originally a T-Mobile number.  I'll try to start sourcing these, but feel free to help out. Friejose 13:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cell Phone Exchanges
Talk:Eldon W. Joersz

message: Following claim was added to top of article - according to 97.113.156.32,
"There were two people in this airplane when the record was set. Capt. Eldon w. Joersz (Pilot) and Maj. George T Morgan(RSO). The record they BOTH broke was previously held by the two other individuals (named in this article)."
If this is true, will need a RS and would need to be worked into the article body, not just dumped at the top 84.93.161.89 (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment moved from article intro to talk page
Talk:Emil Clade

message: Does not meet WP:SOLDIER & sig RS coverage not found link, just passing mentions.
No de.wiki article exists. Did not hold a significant command and topped out as Captain. Successful completion of missions (sorties flown, # of enemy aircraft shot down, etc) is not part of SOLDIER. A MilHist RfC on this topic has failed to gain consensus in May of 2017: 
*MilHist:RfC on the notability of flying aces.
Hence the redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability
Talk:Ernst Kupfer

message: I'm preserving it here by providing this link. Addition: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material 

message: This article lacks the full detail of awards he was awarded. You can clearly see in the Article's photo that he has more awards then the four mentioned on the Article. I will fix this if allowed. Thanks, Luke. 72.11.52.56 (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unmentioned Awards
Talk:Eugene DeBruin

message: The summary of the escape totally contradicts summaries of the same escape in other articles, such as Dieter Dengler and Rescue Dawn.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwynand (talk • contribs) 20:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This seems wholly not credible as the movie came out ten years after the documentary.96.241.177.111 (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herzog's claim of ignorance regarding DeBruin
Talk:Ringing Down the Years

message: The article doesn't mention who the female singer is on Track 2, "The King". I have it as Cathy le Surf. Perhaps someone could verify this and add her to the Personnel section.
Frankwm1 (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female Singer
Talk:Rafe

message: Maybe nothing needs to be done here (given the purpose of this article), but the following sentence is not *technically* correct:
:"In Yiddish the rafe distinguish פּ (p) from פֿ (f) and in Hebrew or Aramaic words also to distinguish ב (b) and בֿ (v, in Yiddish words you use װ for that sound) and תּ (t) from תֿ (s, in Yiddish words you use ס for that sound)."
;Explanation:
:1.  About 20% of the Yiddish vocabulary consists of Hebrew words that are part of the Yiddish vocabulary.
:2.  These Hebrew-orign words retain the original Hebrew spelling.
:3.  Thus, while it is true that non-Hebrew origin words us the 'v' and 's' letters as described, Yiddish also uses the other letters.  The above sentence suggests otherwise.
  
;Suggestion:
:I think the parenthetical at the end of the quoted sentence should be deleted -- because it is misleading.
David  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.54.20 (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Rafe in Yiddish
Talk:Frederick E. Humphreys

message: The article appears to be a close paraphrase of this article at the New York State Military Museum site, whose copyright status is not explicitly stated. I spoke to the executive director, who indicated it can be treated as public domain, and will arrange to get this in writing.--SPhilbrickT 17:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been through the CP process twice. :/ Pending verification of permission, it's been stubbed back. It can be restored, of course, once that arrives. Alternatively, anyone is free to expand the article with original text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just received a copy of the permissions email. I will add the OTRS pending--SPhilbrickT 14:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of copyright issues
Talk:Lineated woodpecker

message: I am not a bird expert, but someone who appears to be claims that two images on this page 
* :File:Lineated Woodpecker RWD2.jpg
* :File:Lineated Woodpecker RWD6.jpg
are not Lineated Woodpeckers, but Crimson-crested Woodpeckers.
According to this site, one of the distinguishing differences is the white stripes coming to a V, which indicates the  Crimson Crested Woodpecker  rather than the Lineated Woodpecker.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for correcting (for new visitors, there were two images of a different species, which has now been removed.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image question
Talk:Montezuma (Sessions opera)

message: Does Oteri ask whether Montezuma should be considered an important twelve-tone opera because he doesn't know and is curious, because he thinks it shouldn't be, or because he thinks it should be? Hyacinth (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting question, but you will have to ask Oteri about his motivation. All we can tell from his blog is what he says: "David Pountney, stage director of the current production of Soldaten claims in an essay published in the program that ... there are essentially only three important 12-tone operas: the present work [i.e., Zimmermann's Die Soldaten], Berg’s Lulu and Schoenberg’s Moses und Aron. What about Montezuma or the operas of Luigi Dallapiccola?"  It seems clear that Oteri is questioning the validity of the strictness of Pountney's limiting the field to just those three operas, but it is impossible to say anything beyond that without indulging in speculation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if he hates all these operas? Hyacinth (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't have said so, either for Pountney or Oteri, but describing something as "important" isn't the same thing as expressing admiration or fondness, is it?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Oteri
Talk:Friedrich Lang

message: Does not meet WP:SOLDIER & significant RS coverage not found link, just passing mentions in less than RS sources.
A de.wiki article exists but is equally unconvincing for notability. Did not hold a significant command and topped out at colonel. Please also see a note at  MilHist Talk Archives for background behind the redirect. In summary, per the outcome of the discussion at Notability:People on notability of Knight's Cross recipients: permalink, certain recipients were deemed non notable and WP:SOLDIER has been modified accordingly: diff. The articles of these recipients are being redirected to alphabetical lists.
K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability
Talk:Fritz Losigkeit

message: Preserving here by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material 

message: Did a cheeky drive-by ce, auto-edded, dupe wl scan, remedied a few typos. All suggestive, rv as desired. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE
Talk:Geoffrey Wellum

message: May I ask, why is this man shown with a category of 1933 births when he is in fact born earlier? He was 17 when he joined the RAF, which was in 1939. That means he have to have been born in 22 or 23. Anyone disagree? 79.138.214.2 (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: actually, in 21 as was shown in the article. 79.138.214.2 (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: Article has both the 4th and the 14th August as his date of birth! MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And in February 2011 I feel the time has come to fix this, so I have done so, using this reference from the RAF itself. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

text: NB his date of birth was apparently 04 August. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Wellum still alive? I thought I'd heard he died in a freak accident trying to make tea in the bath? Also, should we excerpt of any of his book w/in this article in the appropriate sections, such as when he talks about doing math? Azx2 02:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Birth 

message: I have removed the garing medal fest that awas added, only suitable for garish American articles this sort of presentaion is not normally used on British articles. Most of the awards listed are not really noteworthy and are just padding for the medal fest. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medal Fest
Talk:Kerameikos

message: I swapped this page with the one called "Kerameikon". So, the current text used to be on the Kerameikon page, and this page used to redirect there. There can be no doubt that Kerameikos is the proper name of the place (just google it). Is there anyone out there who'd like to add some content here? It's an important place and deserves more detail. athinaios 08:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: The bullet points in the references/external links section have broken loose and are stampeding all over the image on the left-hand side. I'm not familiar enough with wiki formatting to fix this myself - could someone else help corral them? Thanks!199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that better? Dylsss(talk contribs) 19:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better. You're a hero!199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken formatting
Talk:Megalaimidae

message: Phu Hin Rong Kla National Park (and a few others) refer to a species named "Boves Barbet", but the only references Google finds beyond the Wikipedia clones are the websites of the National Parks Department of Thailand. Does anyone have an idea which of the species could be meant? andy (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boves Barbet
Talk:Great barbet

message: I added a section on the taxonomy of the great barbet that was then heavily edited and shortened by user:BhagyaMani. I've reverted to my original version for the following reasons:
*It is worth mentioning in the article that Boddaert published a catalogue of Daubenton's plates.
*It is worth mentioning explicitly that neither Buffon nor Daubenton used binomial names.
* "The great barbet was subordinated to the genus Psilopogon in 2004" - this is strange English and it is not clear what it means. 
*Wikipedia uses the taxonomy published by the IOC - and not that of HBW alive. See here Thus in my version the IOC was cited for the genus change from Megalaima to Psilopogonand also for the list of subspecies.
*Having a separate very short "Etymology" section is not necessary - the etymology naturally forms part of the taxonomy. Please look at any of the Featured articles on birds.
*I've now mentioned that the red-vented barbet is the most closely related species.
- Aa77zz (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See the page Taxonomy (biology) for the definition of the term 'Taxonomy', and to understand that Buffon's description of the bird was NOT a classification in this sense. So the great barbet's taxonomy starts with Boddaert's scientific name!! Lots of species were described by Buffon and colleagues in the 18th century, but NOT classified. See the definition of Etymology to understand that this term is not a part of taxonomy. The Handbook of the Birds of the World is the proper source for bird subspecies, but NOT the IOC.-- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes
Talk:Puffbird

message: I edited this article so it has more information and I hope it is no longer a stub. I expanded with the aid of a book called Complete Birds of the World. SparrowHK (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rerated it as a start - thankyou for expanding. If we can expand it five-fold it could be on WP:DYK. I will see what I can do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

message: The idea that Primobucco mcgrewi is an ancestral puffbird seems to be out of date. See for instance: Daniel T. Ksepka and Julia A. Clarke, Primobucco mcgrewi (Aves: Coracii) from the Eocene Green River Formation: New Anatomical Data from the Earliest Constrained Record of Stem Rollers Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Jan., 2010), pp. 215-225. William Avery (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunate name then, oh well, let's update the articles....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah. Sorry I was a bit pushed for time earlier (and still am), so just dumped this rather terse note here. I'll do a little more digging and get back on this one. William Avery (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  No it's interesting - actually there appears to be quite alot on primobucco so mught be DYK-worthy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and still worthy of mention here on account of that misleading name "Primobucconidae". Oh the perils of priority! William Avery (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Primobucco mcgrewi

message: Hope to be able to contribute directly in a week or so, but here are some useful refs; I was specifically looking for info on taxonomy, but some of these contain much more than that:
*National Geographic Complete Birds of the World
*Woodpeckers
*Systematics and Taxonomy of Australian Birds
MeegsC (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potentially useful refs for taxonomy and more 

message: "white-faced puffbird" (is it 'white-faced nunbird'?) etc are hard to identify without the birders' book: can we have scientific names (italicized) in parentheses?--Wetman (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  white-faced puffbird
Talk:Joannes de Mol

message: User:Afasmit is only interested in adding his own and stupid categories, he never checks the text for proper English and right translations. Taksen 08:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Blue-tailed bee-eater

message: There's some back-and-forth at the moment about which box image to use for this page. Can we collect some opinions about the candidates rather than reverting in a circle? Recent candidates:
File:Blue Tailed Bee Eater Portrait.jpg
File:SL Bundala NP asv2020-01 img08.jpg
File:Blue-tailed bee-eater (Merops philippinus) Photograph By Shantanu Kuveskar.jpg
Of these I prefer #1, because of the high contrast and strong colours. #3 actually looks a little doubtful - shouldn't the tail be blue from the underside? Is this a blue-cheeked bee-eater instead? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: #3 is no doubt a blue-tailed as a blue-cheeked would have a green vent and the blue on the cheeks, supercilium and forehead more marked. I could suggest a truce with a left facing bird for the taxobox and a right-facing one in text aligned at the left. Let me try and add more text to accomodate an extra image. If someone has an in-flight image showing part underwing and upperwing, I would think it would be trump all others. PS: the faded chin of #1 makes me think #3 is better for the taxobox. Shyamal (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Shyamal, Are you planning this GA. Anyway, I requested four images in Flickr, I'll leave a message here again if one of the images has changed their image license now for you to upload. 136.27.38.4 (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really thinking of GAs, I find them a drain of time that could be better utilized. Shyamal (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choosing a box image 
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Alasdair

message: Category:	1
Image talk:	1
Image:	81
Mainspace	3497
Portal:	2
Talk:	255
Template:	53
User talk:	1071
User:	98
Wikipedia talk:	182
Wikipedia:	1032
avg edits per page	 2.68
earliest	14:09, 15 August 2005
number of unique pages	2343
total	6273
2005/8	31	
2005/9	24	
2005/10	203	
2005/11	61	
2005/12	99	
2006/1	4	
2006/2	0	
2006/3	9	
2006/4	25	
2006/5	8	
2006/6	267	
2006/7	13	
2006/8	41	
2006/9	119	
2006/10	55	
2006/11	29	
2006/12	42	
2007/1	16	
2007/2	17	
2007/3	25	
2007/4	245	
2007/5	1046	
2007/6	999	
2007/7	1008	
2007/8	1049	
2007/9	704	
2007/10	134	
Run at 08:27:17 Fri  5 Oct 2007 UTC using Interiot's wannabe Kate tool. WjBscribe 08:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit breakdown
Talk:Brine pool

message: Links: As of 4/10/09 ZERO of the 4 links function. They should be removed.
Thanks.  One worked, I left it, removed the others.  --KP Botany (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken links

message: I deleted the section "Effect on Submarines" and merged the text with the "Characteristics" section because, while interesting and sourced, the "effect on submarines" is no more notable than the "effect on cheddar cheese" or the "effect on canned soup" because the effect on submarines is a consequence of the characteristics of the brine pool (high density), not a novel phenomenon in of itself, nor is it significant enough to submarine exploration to require any additional merit.
67.221.85.159 (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Effect on Submarines" 

message: This section does not belong. It appears that someone got salt lake and Brine Pool mixed up.Hypershock (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "role in environmental remediation"
Talk:Linear matrix inequality

message: This page needs cleanup. The convexity discussion is not needed in my opinion, also references to freely unavailable sources should be minimized. nszabolcs 09:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

message: This article does not address what is meant by A >= 0. Is every value in A greater than zero, or is there something more to it than that? I think this issue should be addressed in this page, as this is the Wikipedia article that pops up when matrix inequality is searched in Google.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by OceanEngineerRI (talk • contribs) 01:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is meant by an inequality applied to a matrix? 

message: Given LMI on this post is a quite particular LMI and shows up only in parametrizing them. Sign definiteness comes after the the definition which is the other way around. This is not minimalistic but unfortunately misleading. Convexity of the semidefinite cone is not related to LMIs per se. And the term is coined in J.C. Willems "Least squares stationary optimal control and the algebraic Riccati equation" DOI : 10.1109/TAC.1971.1099831 . Moreover, in the current definition due to the $A_0$ term it is widely known that it should have been called an affine matrix inequality etc. If needed one should start from the Löwner partial ordering and then define what $>$ operation means otherwise I agree with the previous commenter it's not addressed though crucial.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:D4FB:1:B430:DCAF:A4FB:17CA (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The definition is not correct.