lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Chevalley basis

message: As far as I know, the index for H is a simple positive root (no negatives here), but the Index for E is a root (negatives allowed, no required of being simple). E.g. for $A_n$ there are n simple positive roots but the Lie algebra has dimension n^2-1! 2001:1716:4602:57C0:59CA:BED1:D7E0:5367 (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong indexing
Talk:Closure with a twist

message: This article currently makes no sense at all. Perhaps by "transposed" the writer means "complemented", but how does he get 110 + 110 = 000? Even in binary, that doesn't work. (110 + 110 is 1100, or 100 modulo 23.) And then even if we accept that by "+" he means "XOR", we're still left with
    F = {000,110,101}
 
    F + 110 = {110,000,011} = F 
which is clearly not true unless we're willing to accept that 011 = 101.
This obviously isn't a hoax, since it's copied pretty much verbatim from http://www.cwatsets.org/ (and BTW it might be a copyright violation to copy that site, but it makes so little sense that I don't care) — but what on earth does it mean?
The article could probably be greatly improved by giving an example of a set which is a group, or which is a cwatset. (Are the two terms synonymous? Does one imply the other? Or else what's that talk about groups closed under addition?) If the article isn't cleaned up in a few days, I'll nominate it for deletion, just to get it out of the way. --Quuxplusone 07:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The addition is modulo two. We don't have to accept the equation 011 = 101; we just have to define 1 + 1 = 0, and then 01 = 01. I don't think a group ought to be defined here … there's a link in the article, and that should be sufficient. Finally, the article as it stands seems quite clear to me ... every group of order 2n is a cwatset (ok, it's isomorphic to a cwatset), but not every cwatset is a group. I agree that the article could stand to be wikified, but deletion seems a bit extreme.  DavidCBryant 13:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonsense?
Talk:List of Kansas locations by per capita income

message: Take my references . . . please.  Can an article like this exist if there are no citations for it?  If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around, does it make any noise?  Rhetth 03:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The biggest abboration of non-citing I have seen yet. 
Talk:Jan Brueghel the Younger

message: How can this seventeenth-century painter be referred to as "Northern Renaissance"? This article probably needs to be expanded/clarified to explain how this third-generation Brueghel fits into the greater story of seventeenth-century Flemish and European art while continuing the traditions for which his family for which his family is known. --Stomme 20:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Northern Renaissance?

message: I think the term "fijnschilders" has come to be generally associated specifically with a group of artists in Leiden, in the Dutch Republic--Gerard Dou who are approximate contemporaries with Jan II Brueghel (or a bit later). The use of this term in, at least in English, seems rather specific to me and incorrectly applied here. A better reference is on the page for Cabinet painting.--Stomme 20:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fijnschilders
Talk:List of cities in Kansas

message: It should be included in City Requirements where it lays out the requirements for the incorporation as a specific class of city whether there is any difference in function or organization of the city government between the classes. Criticalthinker (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classes
Talk:List of counties in Kansas

message: Some helpful information on U.S. county lists can be found at WP:COUNTYLISTS. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject help

message: I noticed that several of the counties are listed as "formally" known by some other name.  Is that supposed to be "formerly?"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonelyksdem (talk • contribs) 16:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Counties

message: The defunct counties' table should also offer placename etymologies, as do the existing counties.- Gilliam (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defunct counties 
Talk:Wayne Pacelle

message: There is one editor who made a brief attempt at disclosure, another editor who has been permanently blocked for using multiple accounts nearly exclusively dedicated to making promotional edits to articles on businesses, and quite a few more breadcrumbs here. 2603:3004:609:700:E492:3D0B:6B6A:760C (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect use of tag, the COI accounts have hardly edited here. The page was not written by COI accounts. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI tag
Talk:Ness City, Kansas

message: If you would like to edit this article, please review the following to get a better idea of what to include:
# All city articles MUST follow this guideline for layout and content: Wikipedia:USCITY
# Please examine these city examples: Lock Haven, Pennsylvania; Stephens City, Virginia; Kent, Ohio; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Grand Forks, North Dakota.
# Please do NOT add text that sounds like a realtor advertisement, but instead write like a neutral-party encyclopedia.
# Please read the  editing tutorial and  new contributor help page before editing the first time. 
# How to cite sources by adding references? Add references or someone may delete your text.
# What is Verifiability?
Sbmeirow (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Notes Before Editing This Article 
Talk:Controllability Gramian

message: If this Gramian is nonsingular, we have controllability.
However, for observability, wikipedia says the condition is "if and only if".
One or the other seem to be wrong (or else, they are not stated as accurately as possible)...
-- Biscay 12:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The condition is if and only if. I have corrected the text and used the "external link" as reference (since there, the iff is demonstrated)Pivs (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Corner solution

message: Statement retracted. Any good whose optimal quantity is 0 is still 0 in higher dimensions. Bsdlite (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More than two goods? 

message: "corner solution" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "agent's maximization problem". It's just simply a case where the solution to a system of (dynamic or otherwise) equations lies at the boundary of the set of admissible values. Of course "agent's maximization problem"s might have a corner solution, but that's just an example. This article confuses an example with a definition.radek (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uhhh...
Talk:Tricia Cotham

message: I request a WP:SEMI lock on this article as this page is being hatefully changed.
I understand people's frustration, yet it does not give the free run for abuse.
Please be respectful.
RobiBuecheler (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  current events cause hateful editing 

message: Tricia Cotham disappears recently as a politician for 6 years to found and organize a lobbying firm that we only know the acronym of, BCHL, with no further details included in the article? We don't even know what the acronym BCHL stands for. Shouldn't there be some information on the lobbying firm since it's a very recent phenomenon preceding her party switch? Who funded the lobbying firm for 6 years? I don't have access to the NY Times. Can someone who does, access this recent article which cites the lobbying organization, and add more info. on the lobbying firm, their political issues and financing? Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the info on her lobbying firm?
Talk:Peibio Clafrog

message: I have rewritten the article, removing references to the Early British Kingdoms website, using print resources instead. Alekjds talk 05:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is terrific work, but there are still a few problems. First and foremost, some of the wording is far too close to the sources, making it plagiarism; it needs to be rewritten. Second, some of the book sources are still not reliable. Walker's Hereford Guide is from 1808 and makes some dubious claims, such as putting a firm date on the arrival of the Saxons. And the writings of Iolo Morganwg can't be used to make any claim of fact. I'll get on this as soon as possible.--Cúchullain t/c 13:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always been horrible at rewriting sources—thanks for your help with this. If I have some extra time today, I will do some more digging in regards to dates; they seem hard to come by for this guy. Alekjds talk 17:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Cúchullain's comments. I appreciate the effort you have made here, Alekjds, but there are still issues which need adressing. Anything by Iolo is suspect. A lot is pure invention but sometimes he made use of genuine sources, usually amended to suit his vision; if the material from the Iolo Mss. is in fact taken from the Liber Landavensis then that can and should be sourced directly (I'll check when I get time, having copies of both). Also concur with Cúchullain on antiquated sources, the ready availabilty of which is one of the mixed blessings of the internet age; no reputable book on the subject would use them as a primary source as they often contain errors and even if they are otherwise sound scholarship has moved on, to say the least. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

text: The text added from the Iolo mss. is a footnote by the editor, Iolo's son. Taliesin Williams was not a forger like his father but only the first part quoted refers directly to Liber Landavensis. The rest is speculation (who's?). The dates are not reliable and as Taliesin doesn't give his source(s) there is no reliable source for their use here. As for Liber Landavensis, it's in medieval Latin and not always too easy to read so I'll check what Wendy Davies has to say. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewriting
Talk:Cyclic module

message: Is there a name for modules M such that M ⊕ M is cyclic?  Is there name for the largest n (depending on M) such that Mn is cyclic? JackSchmidt (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question! It looks a bit like P. M. Cohn type stuff, doesn't it? Actually, I don't think that this largest integer always exists; consider the ring R \simeq R^4 in Invariant basis number#Examples. JoergenB (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly cyclic modules 

message: It seems like it might be worth mentioning under §Examples that a cyclic module MR over a ring R with nonzero zero divisors, a cyclic module may have a proper (cyclic) submodule MRa, where a is a (two-sided?) zero divisor of R. This might help with intuition for those not properly familiar with the topic, like me.  —Quondum 14:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyclic proper submodules of cyclic modules
Talk:Depth (ring theory)

message: Since this new section is completely unrelated to the main subject of the article, I think that it should be moved into a separate article. Arcfrk (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Arcfrk (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Firstly, I am not your "dude". Please, learn to behave. Secondly, since you elected not to respond to a courtesy remark directly above, your claim about "starting wars" is completely disingeneous. Thirdly, if you feel that the title of the article does not accurately reflect it content, this can certainly be discussed. As far as I can tell, it follows Wikipedia's standard naming conventions. Have a nice day, amigo. Arcfrk (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depth of noncommutative subrings
Talk:Elementary abelian group

message: I've removed all the capitalised As, in reference to Wikipedia's rules on capitalisation and the page on abelian groups SetaLyas (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the title really shouldn't be capitalised either. Is it worth moving it back to the redirected page (Elementary abelian group, with a lower-case "a" in "abelian")? 86.20.234.55 (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The move sounds good to me.  I've asked an admin to help remove the redirect blocking the move. JackSchmidt (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All done. JackSchmidt (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation
Talk:Troy, Kansas

message: Please review the following to get a better idea of what you should add to this article:
# Please follow the Wikipedia USCITY guideline for layout and content.
# Please examine these great articles for ideas: Lock Haven, Pennsylvania / Stephens City, Virginia / Kent, Ohio / Tulsa, Oklahoma / Grand Forks, North Dakota.
# Please ensure a person meets Wikipedia Notability requirements before adding to the "Notable People" section.
Please review the following before editing:
# Please document your source by citing a reference to prove your text is verifiable.
# Please add text that has a neutral point of view instead of sounding like an advertisement.
# Please read the "Editing, Creating, and Maintaining Articles" chapter from the book Wikipedia : The Missing Manual, .
Sbmeirow (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Notes Before Editing This Article 
Talk:Dynamics of Markovian particles

message: The only reference here is http://www.bergner.se/DMP/download.htm. This paper appears to be a private publication, possibly of the same original author of the wikipedia article. I could not find mention of "Dynamics of Markovian particles" and the claimed solution of "paradoxes" in peer reviewed literature.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.77.27.176 (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Talk:GCD domain

message: Doesn't the Gauss lemma hold for GCD domains?  -- Taku (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which Gauss lemma? Product of primitive polys is primitive? Irreducible implies irreducible over field of fractions? Algebraist 03:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant the first one. (I didn't know the second.) -- Taku (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They're both called Gauss's lemma, according to my lecturer and our article. The first is true for GCD domains, according to the Chapman & Glaz book. The second easily follows from the first, but I don't have a source for that at the moment. Algebraist 16:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gauss lemma 

message: In the reference for the claim that R[X1,...,Xn] is a GCD-domain if R is a GCD-domain, I can find that R[X1,X1-1] is a GCD-domain if R is a GCD-domain, which is another statement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.14.251 (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polynomial ring of GCD domain 

message: I'm not happy with the definition given in this article. Say a,b are elements in a domain. It is not a priori clear, why 'unique minimal principal ideal containing (a,b)' should be the same as 'smallest principal ideal containing (a,b)'. The latter is definitely the correct definition, as it is equivalent to the definition of gcd in terms of elements. (A gcd of a and b is an element g that divides both a and b, such that if x divides a and b, then x divides g.) 
(I think there are weird counterexamples if one doesn't add an assumption. There could be an infinite descending chain of principal ideals containing (a,b) (all not minimal), there could be a unique minimal principal ideal containing (a,b) and it is not the smallest if it isn't contained in the infinite chain.)
--Wandynsky (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The definition
Talk:Hall algebra

message: As of 2023, the vast majority of the time someone says Hall algebra they mean something more general than for finite abelian groups. Usually it refers to a quiver but sometimes a curve. Also there are cohomological and K theoretic versions that deserve at least some mention. ( Maybe a new article for those?) I propose (and am willing to take on supposing no serious opposition) an update to this article to make reference to more general hall algebras that are more often discussed nowadays. Savgustin (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our understanding of hall algebras has considerably advanced since Hall
Talk:Throw (projector)

message: The article defines throw ratio as distance : width. But some sources define it as distance : diagonal, and others distinguish between horizontal and diagonal throw ratio (htr, dtr). It would be better if the article mentioned both horizontal and diagonal throw ratio.--92.78.102.247 (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  horizontal vs diagonal throw ratio 

message: I've tagged a couple of points in the article:
* throw... has a large effect on screen size.
The phrasing is a bit off (it sounds like throw somehow physically changes the size of the screen), but more importantly, there's no explanation of what the effect is.  I'm thinking the intent is to say that throw should be taken into account when making a choice of screen size, but maybe a subject-matter expert can weigh in here -- including how it influences the choice (again, presumably something like "the longer the throw, the larger the required screen, and vice versa").
* Home theatre installations may often have an incorrect throw distance in the room (originally individuals lack the correct throw distance in the room).
I believe this probably is intended to mean that a room may be too small for the projector's default throw, which can be correctd with a short-throw lens. Additional expansion here would also help to complete the article (such as how a short-throw or long-throw lens works to address this, as requested in the 2007 post above).
Thanks, --NapoliRoma (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article could use some elaboration
Talk:Chic

message: Dictionaries seem to say that the word comes from German, not French.--Ami in CH (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  German or French? 

message: I would not say that "chic" is the counterpart of "posh".  One can be posh but not chic and vice-versa.  "Chic" is a matter of style; "posh," in a person, at least, is more a matter of background and speech. A working-class woman can be chic if she has the looks and the style instincts to make the most of them in the right way, and she doesn't even need to wear the most expensive clothes.  Even a very "posh" room, one decorated at great expense with the finest furniture, ornaments, and fabrics, can lack "chic".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.36.89 (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chic vs. Posh 

message: French native speakers have explained that all the above is incorrect.  Starting around the 1870's, Chicago was seen by French high fashion houses as the epitome of glamour and expensive, beautiful clothes.  In France, CHICAGO began referring to any and all things that were top of the line.  In French, CHICAGO is pronounced "SHEEK-ah-go".  As the word became commonplace, it was truncated down to "Sheek" but spelled as "Chic" from "Chic(ago)".  It became commonpace back then for the French to describe everything - hats, clothes, parties, etc. rather than "tres, tres Chicago" for the best of the best of Chicago's luxury in favor of simply "tres, tres Chic!"  [citation needed, however considering the 1870s as the relative time the word "chic" began in documented English, it seems more plausible that "chic" comes from "Chicago" than from over-thinking its etymology to be of ancient or other foreign origin.]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.202.12.193 (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chic from the word "Chicago"
Talk:Krull's theorem

message: I'm going to guess that the proof of this is long and/or nontrivial - but does anyone know for sure? Is it Wikiable? Druiffic (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A sketchy proof in a few lines appears in Matsumura (1987), Commutative Ring Theory. I am not that familiar with Zorn's Lemma, so I will not venture to transcribe/expand it. Wandrer2 (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof? 

message: The article says that Krull's theorem states there is always a maximal ideal, but makes no mention of it being unique.... is it necessary that the maximal ideal be unique, or can a ring have more than one maximal ideal?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.190.128 (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A ring that has a unique maximal ideal is called local. Rings can have more than one maximal ideal, take the ring of integers, for every prime number p, pZ is a maximal ideal of Z. This theorem further in no way proves anything about uniqueness. 212.127.195.242 (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniqueness?
Talk:Guide to Reference

message: This project, Guide to Reference, was announced under the name Guide to Reference Sources as a working title. It is not yet published, and slated for Fall 2007. Patrick Hogan, editorial director, ALA Editions, American Library Association. PatrickHogan 20:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated the article.  DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Map algebra

message: This page was basically a stub, so I expanded it quite a bit. It could probably still use more work, such as:
* Description of post-1990 extensions to map algebra
* A section focusing on cartographic modeling (see also Suitability analysis and Suitability model)?
* A list of commonly implemented operators? With history? Too long?
Edit away! Bplewe (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Expansion
Talk:Moundridge, Kansas

message: If you would like to edit this article, please review the following to get a better idea of what to include:
# All city articles MUST following this guideline for layout and content: Wikipedia:USCITY
# Please examine these city examples: Lock Haven, Pennsylvania; Stephens City, Virginia; Kent, Ohio; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Grand Forks, North Dakota.
# Please do NOT add text that sounds like a realtor advertisement, but instead write like a neutral-party encyclopedia.
# Please read the  editing tutorial and  new contributor help page before editing the first time. 
# How to cite sources by adding references? Add references or someone may delete your text.
# What is Verifiability?
Sbmeirow (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Notes Before Editing This Article 
Talk:Geometric function theory

message: I deleted the mention of the Unabomber. Really, if you are interested in him, which likely only a small minority is, you can read the special article about him.
:Mentioning him by this moniker is unsuitable in an article about mathematics, but since this is a relatively obscure field of mathematics, and Kaczynski specialised in it and delivered proof other mathematicians couldn't, he definitely is worthy of being mentioned. 81.240.169.84 09:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Windom, Kansas

message: Please review the following to get a better idea of what you should add to this article:
# Please follow the Wikipedia USCITY guideline for layout and content.
# Please examine these great articles for ideas: Lock Haven, Pennsylvania / Stephens City, Virginia / Kent, Ohio / Tulsa, Oklahoma / Grand Forks, North Dakota.
# Please ensure a person meets Wikipedia Notability requirements before adding to the "Notable People" section.
Please review the following before editing:
# Please document your source by citing a reference to prove your text is verifiable.
# Please add text that has a neutral point of view instead of sounding like an advertisement.
# Please read the "Editing, Creating, and Maintaining Articles" chapter from the book Wikipedia : The Missing Manual, .
Sbmeirow (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Notes Before Editing This Article