lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Ring current

message: The diagram and description here perpetuate a misconception that the ring current flows around the earth at the equator.  In fact, at the equator, the ring current closed on itself at a lower altitude, forming two areas of ring current - a larger one on the day side and a smaller on on the night side, rather like this diagram http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/public/THEMIS/SCI/Pubs/Nuggets/PS_ring_current/Fig-1.jpg.  I will put on my list to find/get permission to use a diagram like this one and fix the write up. Canuck100 (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ring Current Misconception
Talk:Rotational energy

message: The article has a video example that currently says:
:Paper roll wound up on strings and released to fall, illustrating the rotational energy of a round body and how it strays when in vertical fall because of it. The demonstration is repeated by winding up the roll in the opposite direction, to show that the walling roll will stray in the other direction as a result.
However, the effect shown is Magnus effect from a rotating cylinder generating lift. The rotational energy is not responsible for straying from vertical. A better example would be a heavier cylinder wound on string vs an same weight unwound cylinder. The wound cylinder will fall slower, as its potential energy has to be converted to both rotational and translational energy instead of purely translational. A heavier cylinder will make the aero influence such as the Magnus effect and drag, as well as the contribution to mass from the string, negligible.
I'm going to remove this example.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.38.6.198 (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Example 

message: The article currently says:
:The European spaceport in French Guiana (Guiana Space Centre) is within about 5 degrees of the equator, so space rocket launches (for primarily geo-stationary satellites) from here to the east obtain nearly all of the full rotational speed of the earth at the equator (about 1,000 mph, sort of a "sling-shot benefit). Rocket launches easterly from Kennedy (USA) on the other hand obtain only about 400 mph added benefit, due to the lower relative rotational speed of the earth at that northerly latitude. This saves significant rocket fuel per launch, so this tends to be a relatively more economic spaceport.
However, Kennedy space center is located at 28.6 degrees North (according to Google maps). As the Earth rotates once in 24 hours, the Kennedy space center travels a distance cos(28.6 deg) = 0.878 times the length of the Equator, whereas Guiana travels cos(5 deg) = 0.996 times the length of the Equator. The Equator is 40075 km (24901 miles) long. Divided by 24 hours, I find velocities of 911 and 1034 miles per hour respectively. The number 400 mph for Kennedy space center must be wrong.
In contrast, the Andoya space center in Northern Norway at 69.3 degrees North only moves at 367 mph, closer to the 400 figure.
A rocket sent up from the Kennedy space center, compared to one sent up from the Guiana space center, must make up for the difference in initial speed by burning an extra amount of fuel. If a rocket needs to have a mass M_{Guiana} when sent up from Guiana, it needs to have a mass M_{Kennedy} when sent up from Kennedy, sufficient to reach the initial velocity of Guiana and still having left fuel so that its mass at that point is M_{Guiana}. Using the rocket equation, we find that
:M_{Kennedy} = M_{Guiana} e^{\frac{v_{Guiana}-v_{Kennedy}+gt}{u}} = 1.023M_{Guiana}
assuming exhaust velocity u = 3000 m/s relative to the rocket and acceleration 3g. That is roughly a 2.3 percent increase in cost. Cacadril (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The velocity advantage of Guiana vs Kennedy space centers
Talk:Mastacembelus

message: I disagree. It should only be merged if the fire eel is the sole Mastacembelus member. But it's not. There are also tire track eel (Mastacembelus armatus) and spotfinned eel (this one may not be Mastacembelus though) as far as I know. What should be done instead is to rewrite this article and really make it a Mastacembelus article that mentions all Mastacembelus species. --Melanochromis 06:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with fire eel? 
Talk:Fire eel

message: Disagree. see Talk:Mastacembelus There are other Mastacembelus species besides the fire eel. As far as I know, two more Mastacembelus species are also aqurium fish and deserve their own articles rather to be all merged with the fire eel. --Melanochromis 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Mastacembelus?
Talk:Scalar–vector–tensor decomposition

message: I propose that Vector decomposition be merged into Scalar-vector-tensor_decomposition. I think that the content in the Vector decomposition article is negligible , and the scalar-vector-tensor decomposition article can be expanded to accommodate the former. 110.174.33.20 (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose: the scalar-vector-tensor decomposition article discusses a special case which is idendendently notable, and hence should not be merged. Specifically, "a decomposition of the most general linearized perturbations of the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric into components according to their transformations under spatial rotations". Most of the article is about that particular decomposition, which will not be of interest to readers looking to learn about the more general field of vector decomposition. Klbrain (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Rankins Springs

message: The sentences below have been deleted:
::References state "the springs were closed in 1957”.  Nowadays the springs only appear after extensive heavy rain.  (referenced from a short Sydney Morning Herald Travel article on Rankins Springs)
The reasons for deletion:  What does "the springs were closed in 1957” even mean?  How do you close a natural spring emanating from a rocky range?  And furthermore, the following sentence seems to contradict the concept of 'closing the springs', as they reappear “after extensive heavy rain”.  I’ve searched publications on Trove in 1957 for any reference that might support the concept of ‘closing the springs’, but without success.  So these sentences have been deleted because: (1) they are not supported by quality references,(2) taken together the sentences are contradictory, and (3) arguably the sentences are extremely tangential (if not irrelevant) to the article as a whole. Ikeshut2 (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Sector mass spectrometer

message: This is the sort of article where diagrams are sorely needed in order to give the worded descriptions meaning.  Perpendicular fields and their resultant forces in the Theory section and geometries in the Classic Geometry section would be good places to start.  Also, the descriptions should follow the diagrams, so the diagrams need to use notation that is easy to indicate using Wikipedia's interface.  I cannot myself do the diagrams since I do not have expert knowledge in this field nor do I have artistic skill, but hopefully people who do will read this and help out. --BBUCommander (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures Needed

message: The correct citation for the Mattauch-Herzog type MS should be: "J. Mattauch, R. Herzog, Über einen neuen Massenspektrographen, Z. Physik 89, 786-795 (1934)". There are also pictures of the original geometry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.79.113.50 (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  original publication 
Talk:SEG-Y

message: This edit says it's SEG-Y (with a hyphen), rather than SEG Y (with no hyphen) and suggests the article name should change. Do we have a definitive reference as which is correct? SEG's website listing their standards has the hyphen, but the actual rev 1 document is "SEG Y rev 1 Data Exchange format", and mostly (with 2 exceptions) does not use the hyphen. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking through the two revisions of the standard, "SEG Y" appears to be more consistent, and was the exclusive term for rev0. However, as "SEG-Y" is also in rev 1 of the standard (yes, twice), and on SEG's website, it looks like the two are used interchangeably. I'd recommend keeping the page name at SEG Y, and reword the lead to something like `The SEG Y file format (often "SEG-Y") is ...` +mt 04:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I've moved this back to "SEG-Y", as the revision 2.0 standard exclusively uses this form. +mt 01:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pointless having the reference to 'PASSCAL SEGY' in this article because there's any number of 'variations' of the SEGY format produced by a huge number of seismic acquisition and processing companies, which of course makes a nonsense of having a standard. Speaking as one who has worked in seismic processing since 1974 and in the last 20 years specifically on seismic data formats. J R Spigot (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEG Y or SEG-Y
Talk:Signal beam

message: Would it be reasonable to merge this with reference beam and describe them both in the same article, with appropriate redirects? Gah4 (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: Both this article and the reference beam article seem to me to be unnecessary.  They refer purely to holography and are discussed ind etail there. Epzcaw (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove
Talk:Noise (telecommunications)

message: The title signal noise is not very appropriate, as it's not a standard term and is not even used in the article.  The article is about noise, and the signal should be converted to an appropriate parenthetical.  Maybe noise (signal) or noise (information theory).  Any other good ideas before I pick a place to move it? Dicklyon 18:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That merge proposal will be summarily dismissed unless you start the merge discussion at the page that the tag links to.  I'll support it. Dicklyon 15:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Signal noise is an oxymoron.  It's either signal or noise, it's not both.  Electronic noise is a much better title. Signal to noise ratio is a topic all to itself. --ssd (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title
Talk:The Science of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch

message: Could someone verify the spelling of "zinidar"?  I recall no such beast in the Barsoom novels; there is, however, a "zitidar."
:Well spotted. Fixed. Daibhid C 17:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

message: This is a call to arms to make the Terry Pratchett article a Featured Article. It will greatly help the cause if all the side articles that link from it are of a reasonable standard. Terry Pratchett has around 40 side articles (ie the ones relating to his work) - I don't think they are all expected to be GA (Good Article) standard for TP to become featured, but certain basic elements will be looked at for sure. 
A full list of the sub articles is here on the TP talk page: I'm posting this comment on the talk pages of each article on the list. Editors reading may also like to help with the TP article too? 
The main issue, especially with smaller articles, is often a finding reasonable amount of citations, and prose can sometimes be a little  POV too. Coverage of the topic is probably less important, but of course it needs to be reasonably good. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making [[Terry Pratchett]] a Featured Article 

message: @Cunard I've added and summarized one good review. Anything else you see so that we could remove the notability template? ISFDb has nothing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Cunard Just a ping that I've now added the reviews you've found the the article proper. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability
Talk:Jack Marx

message: Not much information yet, but a respected journalist and author in Australia and Walkley Award winner. Hoping others will add to info. Is this not criteria? Hel davo 06:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the speedy deletion tag, as it now doesn't satisfy the criteria for speedy deletion. I still have concerns about notability though. Frexes 17:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thoughts and more research: I'm wrong. He certainly does satisfy the notability criteria. Frexes 18:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It should be moved soon. Frexes 14:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Removed the gratuitous reference to Marx having no tertiary education. Who cares? It's immaterial - lots of people don't.
I've also included a link to the blog about Kevin Rudd so that readers can decide for themselves its merits. CallMeHenry 12:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rudd link etc 

message: Is he still a news.com.au blogger? The blog hasn't been updated in about 3 months. 120.17.242.124 (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current status 
Talk:Simple shear

message: The term "shear" also appears in stress analysis of solids under loading  69.138.228.42DSMoseley@aol.com  Tom Moseley  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.228.42 (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

message: Valid only for small strains?  —DIV (128.250.247.158 (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strain magnitude
Talk:Simulated fluorescence process algorithm

message: Is there an article that can adopt this paragraph? --Kkmurray 22:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?
Talk:Alyssa Alano

message: Wow his Australian father happens to be of Spanish descent what are the odds. Seriously where are the references.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anen87 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  spanish fantasy once again 

message: "She same arrivals Ritz Azul's" -- What does this mean? Are you also a "Keys Me" wannabe?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.29.4 (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Say what?
Talk:Source protection

message: Bibbledyyy boppieee booppp  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.94.246 (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

message: Hello,
Thanks for reviewing my prior article "Source Privacy and Protection." I wanted to get in touch with you as to how we might want to collaborate on the topic. I have a bunch of information from 20 scholarly sources that contribute to the topic that I would like to add to the article you put together. Potentially, there is also another article on the same topic that we may want to merge. Of course, I wanted to reach out to discuss before proceeding as I am sure this work is important to us all.
Thank you Tm670 (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , from looking at the articles, I don't really see any difference in subject between Protection of sources and Journalism source protection, making the articles forks of each other that should be merged. Personally, I think that this article's title is more natural than that of Journalism source protection, and would advocate that all content should be added to this article, with Journalism source protection converted to a redirect once the merge is completed. signed, Rosguill talk 19:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

text: , Wikipedia articles don't belong to anyone, so just posting on the talk page of the article is sufficient notification for anyone interested. Additionally, it seems like the editor that created the other article hasn't been active for almost a year now. signed, Rosguill talk 02:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source Privacy and Protection
Talk:Harrison Thyng

message: Thanks for the image for the info box all the images! I am the first to admit I am a dunce when it comes to uploading images--I actually tried from the National Museum of the United States Air Force web page for this article and ran into "corrupt page" notices. --Buckboard 06:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Social interaction

message: the social interaction article on wikipedia is tiny? i'm shocked....76.170.79.129 (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both tiny and superficial. Looks like an entry written by a high school student, or worse - a Harvard graduate student.
Would somebody please edit the first line, at the very least? I can't say I particularly agree with the approach of the definition. "Social interaction is when a bunch of dummies would actually look here instead of going out and interacting with people." 64.223.240.212 (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The page had no citations and little academic basis, simply alluding to Weberian social action and describing itself in loosely the same terms. Albeit a much briefer article. Thus redirected. There's already pages for Social action, verstehen, agency (sociology), and symbolic interactionism, quite sufficient before more confusion, methinks. --Tomsega (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Peter Kellman

message: Please do not divorce the word "Maine" from the word "AFL-CIO" in the first paragraph and throughout this article. The Maine AFL-CIO is a state federation of the AFL-CIO.  That is the organizaton's proper name.  One would not divide United States from Coast Guard when referring to the United States Coast Guard.  - Tim1965 15:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maine AFL-CIO
Talk:Shōhaku Okumura

message: Done. I confiemed his kanji name on Sodō Zen Journal. I removed a word of "Roshi" (老師), because it seems a honorific title as Buddism priest and not his own name. --Nightshadow28 17:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese script 

message: Did the Sweeping Zen site copy Wikipedia, or is this article copied from Sweeping Zen? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sweeping Zen
Talk:Special nuclear material

message: Recent BAAs from DHS/DNDO have been appending to their definitions of SNM a phrase such as, "The DOE requires all government-owned Np-237 to be treated as a special nuclear material." What's up with that? Should it mentioned here? Rwflammang (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Neptunium-237
Talk:Spheromak

message: I am thinking that the following sections should be added to the spheromak page:
* Theory (needs to elaborated)
* Subsection on magnetic field profiles, safety factors and transport in spheromaks.
* A section on performance of spheromak should be added. The performance should be tracked over the last 3 decades and should be compared to Lawson Crieterion and other fusion concepts.
* A section on "how to create spheromaks" should be added - pulsed electrostatic helicity injection, steady state helicity injection, etc.
* A section on existing spheromak experiments (may be under external links).
* A section on future challenges
(Would appreciate some help)
--DeepakKumar (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestions, too bad this article seems to have languished a bit. I'm not qualified to really help in any of your listed areas, but do think that a reference to the Electron spiral toroid might be included. According to the discussions here, it seems the principals involved agree the "electron sprial toroid" is a special case of a spheromak. Maybe include it in the proposed "existing spheromak experiments" section? Krellkraver (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion needed

message: Would be great to better separate the plasma configuation from devices that produce it. 
And great if we had a diagram or clear description of the arrangement of currents and fields in the plasma. and a description of the forces on the plasma and how the plasma tends to evolve with time, (does it shrink until stable ?) - Rod57 (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing article - dual meaning and no diagram
Talk:Spin chemistry

message: Hello, I am a student in Marc0126’s class who will be reviewing this user’s contributions to the spin chemistry page. 
Very well done! This is a well written, detailed article that skillfully handles a complex and unwieldy topic. On this Wikipedia page, the sub-field of spin chemistry and its associated content is discussed. The user wrote a succinct and effective section regarding the radical-pair mechanism and its involvement in electron spin chemistry. The user eases the reader into this topic by first establishing radical pair chemistry before delving into reaction kinetics and the effect of the Zeeman Interaction on reaction direction. The equation of the Zeeman Interaction was provided as well as additional images to assist the reader in comprehension.
I am impressed by the level of detail the user included in this wiki-page without adding superfluous information that could have tied up the reader. The lead section is brief but heavily linked and successful at encapsulating the scope of the topic. The article is thorough and delivered in a neutral, unbiased tone. There are only three sources however they are reputable and rich in content. 
To balance the sections discussed under the heading of “The Radical-Pair Mechanism”, I suggest further fleshing out the content under the sub-heading “History of the Theory and Circumstances of Proposal”. You did well in expanding the “hard” science of the topic and I believe you could treat the historical section similarly. 
I must address my bias as a reviewer with a science-heavy education. I could understand this article with my own background knowledge but I do not know if a non-science major would fare the same. I believe the user is affective at introducing chemistry topics within the article and I think many of this article’s viewers will have a science background regardless. I would recommend a second reviewer with a different background look this article over and express their opinion.
Again, great job Marco0126! In my opinion, this was not an easy topic to write about concisely and you’ve done wonderfully doing just that. Superscience71421 (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review of Student Edited Article