lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Attenuated total reflectance

message: after reading this article I still don't know what kind of information can be obtained after performing ATR-IR. Can someone address this ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leungchuenyan (talk • contribs) 13:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

message: The Results and Conclusion sections have nothing to do with an encyclopedic article. bcartolo (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to agree, but if this is indeed unpublished information, it is WP:OR and thus cannot remain in Wikipedia. If this material is correct, it looks rather important. It should be moved to some other public forum where it can be accessible to researchers who need this information. David spector (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

message: Further reading section removed as it points to the same link as the sources section
128.101.169.207 16:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes 07/03/07

message: Where is the output radiation measured and what feature of the sample does it report on? I just see light bouncing around and some energy disappearing into the sample due to the "tunneling" effect, but no actual information being collected. I'm also worried that the amount of energy that "tunnels" is unstable and unpredictable unless the gap is extremely tiny, but then what is added by having a gap? 84.227.237.33 (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The irradiating light is not refelected exactly at the phase boundary to the sample. You might say that the wave overlaps a bit into the sample. Some part of the overlapping light wave is however absorbed in the sample. Hence, in the light you seea after the reflection, there is a spectrum imprinted. --Maxus96 (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: How does it actually produce a measurement?

message: but its much higher cost means it is less widely used.
Ah, what? The cost of a small diamond is totally negligible next to that of a modern spectrometer. I believe practically all standard commercial ATR cells use a diamond. --Maxus96 (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: diamonds
Talk:Michael Urie

message: is michael urie related to singer brendon urie from Panic! At The Disco????
he probably isnt but im just curious  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennapepper (talk • contribs) 08:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  just wondering 

message: I find it hilarious that someone has stated he won a "dramatic interpretation" award from the National Forensics League. This is hardly encyclopedic information. I myself won at least 10 of these during my 4 years, not to mention 40 or so more trophies in other categories. It is literally just high school students traveling from state to state delivering monologues, poetry and duet acting pieces in competition against each other. They travel with the debate team. TheGoonSquad (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Forensics League 

message: If he's gay, would it be alright to say so?  Can someone source it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.170.113 (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He has described himself as "a member of the LGBT community". This is already covered in the article. Siawase (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is he gay? 
Talk:Mazuku

message: Is it possible that the Swahili word mazuku is actually the plural of zuku? Michael Hardy (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

message: I know it's not the central point of the article, but this article is severely misleading to the extent that it suggests that CO2 kills only by displacing oxygen, or that it isn't "pungent".  While small amounts of CO2 are nontoxic and indeed necessary (without it you forget to breathe), high concentrations are very toxic, and will kill you very very dead even if there's plenty of oxygen left.  See the carbon dioxide article for more quantitative statements.
As for "pungency", take a whiff over a bowl of punch with dry ice in it and tell me what you think.  It may be true that you don't detect the CO2 strictly speaking by way of the olfactory sense, but you'll definitely know it's there.
But the more serious error is the one about toxicity, as that could cause people to underestimate the danger. --Trovatore (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  CO2 toxicity 

message: : The origin of mazukus and their association with Lake Kivu is misleading. Lake Kivu has some 300 billion cubic metres of carbon dioxide dissolved, mainly in deeper water below 260m. The origin of this lake's gas is partially from biogenic processes and partially volcanic. On the north shore of Lake Kivu the lava beds associated with Mt Nyiragongo and Mt Nyamulagira, both active volcanoes, lie hundreds of metres deep in a series of lava flows dating back 10 000 years. Gases from the volcano, including carbon dioxide and some sulphur dioxide, also difuse their way through the lava beds. Rainwater falling on the lava plains drains through the lava beds, picking up some of the diffusing carbon dioxide and carrying into the lake through underground streams. 
: However some of the carbon dioxide diffuses right up through the surface of the lava beds and is swept away by the wind. On a still night, this diffusing gas is not swept away, but accumulates in hollows, trenches, cellars and gullies. An unsuspecting person, it has happened to people falling drunk into ditches or even hiding from someone, spends more than a few minutes in such a pocket of gas and they will quickly lose consciousness and die. The mazuku is therefore associated with the lava beds near live volcanoes, not the lake. George Nowak (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mazuku origins 
Talk:Mark Indelicato

message: Indelicato is stated to be a 'closeted gay' actor, without reference. Please correct this. Thnx. (One can't be a closeted gay and have this publicly known...)
80.226.0.7 (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I've removed that claim per WP:GRAPEVINE as an unsourced, contentious statement. Thanks.   Salvio  Let's talk about it! 19:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 80.226.0.7, 9 February 2011 
Talk:Mechanical equivalent of heat

message: At present this article is only a historical retrospective, and a gloss at that. A modern presentation of our understanding of the connection between the kinetic macro and thermo micro scale is missing as is a more thorough mathematical treatment of the topic.  
76.182.76.243 (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern connections needed 

message: Someone needs to provide a simplified diagram of the calorimeter which is used to find the electrical equivalent of heat.   An EQUATION for the electrical equivent is NOT the same thing as a --- however simplified ---picture of the corresponding experiment.
This is now the second time that I have tried to find a picture and run instead into equations.   If Wikipedia is to serve the general population, PICTURES ARE ESSENTIAL Whillier (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Apparatus 

message: The definition of heat is a transfer of energy due to a temperature difference between two systems. It is a process, not a state. This article uses the term incorrectly in several places. Historically, there may not have been a distinction between heat (process) and thermal energy (state), but now there is. This article fails to make this distinction.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.9.8 (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Heat
Talk:Traveller (nautical fitting)

message: This article is only supported by one reference, referring to the nautical use.
The bulk of the article is about the nautical use.
There are other sources that could be used to support the nautical use - allowing the article to be somewhat improved.
The non-nautical content (which is unsupported by any reference) can be removed.
I will/have therefore moved to Traveller (nautical fitting). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong article title
Talk:Mechanoluminescence

message: Lots of names:
* Triboluminescence
* Piezoluminescence
* Fractoluminescence
* Deformation luminescence
* Dislocation luminescence
* Elasticoluminescence
— Omegatron 02:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

message: Electrochemoluminescense is caused by electrochemical reactions, which are not mechanical (stress, fracture, compression, etc.).
Perhaps this should be move to a "related topics" section. Kilgore T (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrochemoluminescense does not belong in the list
Talk:Megatons to Megawatts Program

message: The former less referenced industry p.r. was cut and referenced more realistic data entered -- separately in 3 different sections edits. So there's some work for another editor...
as for unaccounted for discrepancies, that's what USEC left for the DOE to clean up after lost spills and vents... I've seen conservative estimates of 50b USD and 40 years for the taxpayers to clean-up the privatized boondoggle USEC's environmental left-behind mess. Yohananw (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  multiply revised set 2013 

message: Hi, I'm trying to translate this article into Japanese and find one of the sorces, "Nuclear Shadowboxing", might be ... um ... so-called 'unreliable' for its style. This is somewhat bold question but I'd rather ask, could someone check it? Kareha (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Cooper Station
Talk:Mesoscopic scale

message: This article never mentions the commonly understood term "microscopic" -- and thus never distinguishes mesoscopic from microscopic (which is precisely the question I think most people are after when they come to this page.)
I found an exellent comparison of these two measurements here: Mesoscopic Physics. Perhaps some of this description could be incorporated into this article. Kmote (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  need comparison of mesoscopic with microscopic
Talk:Micromagnetics

message: It is obvious that the quality rating of this article - and many other ones - does not refer to the actual version, which has been much improved in the preceding months.
Generally, to any quality rating the version, at least the date of the article underlying the rating, should be mentioned. (In contrast, for the importance-rating a date is not necessary, although in this case at least the year of the rating would be useful.) - A happy new year! Meier99 (talk) 11:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Which version has been rated?

message: Why is the primary title for this page micromagnetism instead of micromagnetics? Brown's original name for the field was micromagnetics, and most of the references at the bottom of this article refer to micromagnetics. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Sheepe2004. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Micromagnetism or micromagnetics? 

message: I propose that Landau–Lifshitz–Gilbert equation be merged into Micromagnetics. The target page already has a section on the LLG equation that gives both the Landau–Lifshitz form and the Gilbert form of the equation. It also provides the necessary context to understand the equation, including a description of the effective field. Actually very little is lacking in the Micromagnetics article about the LLG equation, maybe just the references. --Edgar.bonet (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A little about the history: Landau and Lifshitz did two things in their classic paper. First, they deduced the domain state of a material with uniaxial anisotropy by orienting walls so that  the normal component of the magnetization was the same on each side (so that the demagnetizing field was zero). Then they formulated their dynamic equation for the motion of a domain wall. Although their equation is much the same when applied more generally, they applied it to a one-dimensional situation where magnetostatic interactions can be ignored. Micromagnetics uses similar physics, but is formulated in a general way so the equations can be solved self-consistently without any simplifying assumptions. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge LLG equation 

message: I would say the reorganization is mostly done. The article is still lacking examples and illustrations though. —Edgar.bonet (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks greatly improved. Thanks for doing that! It could use a few citations, though. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Done
Talk:Mineral exploration

message: The term Bankability is not well explained in the article, Perhaps better wording is called for in this section.
GregInCanada 12:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded it without "bankable". --Scott Davis Talk 13:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resource Definition - Bankability 

message: This should probably be a section in the Mining article. Timtempleton (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Mining?
Talk:Namasu

message: I created the "Sunomono" article on a whim because the author of the Namasu page created a link to it, although it did not exist. I understand that the dishes are extremely similar or one is a type of the other, so I'm curious if we should remove the linked "Sunomono" at the end of this article. Clicking "Sunomono" link just ends up refreshing the page as Sunomono now redirects here. The original Sunomono page is still there if you look at history. Alphachimera 04:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunomono edit
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Kylu

message: #:Of course you are incapable of being objective where Giano is concerned.  If you want to turn this candidacy into a contest between friends and enemies of Giano, so be it.  --Ideogram 03:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from vote page 

message: # Neutral (based on answers to my questions) Anomo 14:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral
Talk:Matrix (TV series)

message: The editor who posted the cleanup tag never indicated on this talk page what needed to be cleaned up. I think the form was fine -- what is needed is expansion, so I have replaced it with the Expand tag. If the editor who placed the Cleanup tag objects to this, please indicate on this talk page what exactly needs to be cleaned up. 23skidoo 18:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up tag removal
Talk:Open and affirming

message: "ONA may also refer to a greek scroll" was just pasted on this page. Not sure what this refers to. I took it out until we can substantiate. MPS 04:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ONA may also refer to a greek scroll

message: The article says:
:The FWC website states "This perspective on human sexuality has been affirmed by General Synods in “non-binding” resolutions [sic] summarized by the 'Open and Affirming' movement. Only ten percent of UCC churches have officially adopted the ONA perspective, but the entire denomination is being marketed as ONA through the Still Speaking campaign." 
Why the "[sic]" after "resolutions?"
"[sic]" is used to indicate an error in quoted material, especially a grammatical or spelling error.  But I see no error there.  So what is the [sic] for?  NCdave (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[sic]"? 

message: This article is written solely from a UCC point of view.  ONA spans many denominations.  Major rewrite required.  --Lance W. Haverkamp (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've added a tag at the top of the article to note this. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 04:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Far too limited
Talk:My Inventions: The Autobiography of Nikola Tesla

message: The article is quite lengthy, so is the stub still necessary? Northfox 12:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally it wouldn't be, but except for quotes, there is actually very little content. GregorB (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: remove stub?

message: Since no one has objected to the proposed merge in the week since the tags were placed on these two articles, I am performing the merge and removing the tag from atop this article. B.Wind (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal
Talk:Video the Vote

message: I started this article as I was looking for collected info -- I'm in no way affiliated with the org. and as it spans the nation, is non-partisan, and seems to be a reverent innovation in citizen journalism, I thought it would pass the ORGs test...
Revolute 04:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

message: I just googled this organization and a glance at the results reveals nothing-- just some older PBS articles that aren't relevant. This article may no longer be relevant, and needs citations to show that this organization even existed to begin with, or still does. MerlinCat2 (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  2024 update
Talk:Public holidays in Myanmar

message: I have removed some public holidays from the list which are not Gazetted public holidays in Burma (Myanmar) though some oversea companies shut down on those days.
The days that I removed from list are as follows;
# New Year Eve and New Year Day (Most of the oversea companies declared it as company holiday. But, it is not the gazetted public holidays.)
# Chinese New Year (Lunar New Year) (Singapore-based companies shut down on Chinese New Year)
# Good Friday (Good Friday is not gazetted as public holiday in Burma)
# Easter Day and Boxing Day (Not gazetted in Burma as Public Holidays) Zawthet (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Some Public Holidays
Talk:Neuronal noise

message: The statement that "On the postsynaptic membrane, neural noise has been evident in the early stages of processing sight, smell, and hearing" does not provide a citation. It is uncorroborated, and cannot be corroborated unless there is indication of how, on the neuronal level, one defines noise versus signal. Until this is done, no associated "theory," which simply employs a hypothetical and unanalyzed "noise" term, is testable.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gitchygoomy (talk • contribs) 16:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: that s a good one, but i can find an data or research about the topic! let me know if u stumble by anything!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhaychandora (talk • contribs) 01:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments
Talk:Jessica Tovey

message: i reverted that edit because the file history shows that the user who uploaded it claims to have taken it himself/herself. Until evidence to the contrary is produced the picture stays Johnny-Carmello 01:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: removal of picture
Talk:Neutron interferometer

message: The article seem ambiguous.  The last section says the technology has only recently been applied to cold neutrons, leaving the reader to wonder if this was the first ever application at any energy, and represents the limits of the technology. Layzeeboi (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a short sentence to disambiguate.67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specify applicable energy range earlier.
Talk:History of geology

message: You have done some very good research here, and you have given me some ideas for changes to the history of paleontology article ans some others (such as stratigraphy). I do have some suggestions. Since you haven't actually put the article forward, I didn't edit the text.
You give credit for fossil based stratigraphy to Cuvier and Broignart (actually it is Alexandre Brongniart), but other articles on the English wikipedia (and many other sources) credit William Smith. The truth according to the best reference I have (Rudwick The Meaning of Fossils) was that Smith was working indepednently on his geologic map of England at the same time (or slightly before) Cuvier and Broignart were working on the strata arround Paris. It is probably best to mention Smith as well as the other two, and I think I will fix the stratigraphy and history of paleontology arctiles to mention Cuvier and Broignart as well. It is always better when articles don't directly contradict one another. You might consider mentioning Nicholas Steno as well. Smith might not have been aware of Steno's 17th century work, but Cuvier almost certainly would have been aware of it.
One thing you really need to do is go through and make internal links for terms like stratigraphy, catastrophism, uniformitarianism, plate tectonics, and radiometric dating. You did this for your introductory paragraph but for some reason not for the rest of the article. 
Another comment is that it would really be better if you seperated references and notes into seperate sections, see history of biology or history of paleontology for examples. It would also be good to give ISBN numbers for sources whenever possible.
Rusty Cashman 10:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early comments

message: The phrase "Physical Geology" is used repetitively in geology related articles (ca 60 hits, some talk pages), but seems nowhere to be defined. IMHO, this and the main Geology article need do so, preferentially, as a section title one can link using  on a redirect. // FrankB 17:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical Geology 

message: I added a request for verification for the statement that Neptunism supported the Flood theory. This account seems very different from the account on the page devoted to Neptunism. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neptunism 

message: I have expanded and updated the section on the 20th Century. The expansion has increased the detail of continental drift and the age of the earth. Additional links have also been added HaraldW1954 (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated 20th Century Section
Talk:Neutron spin echo

message: The linked animation http://pathfinder.neutron-eu.net/idb/methods/spin-echo requires a login.
46.193.172.140 (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh, oh, oh, oh 

message: So, is Fourier time just the reciprocal of the highest frequency for which there is sufficient resolution? Perhaps an average frequency of some kind?
46.193.172.140 (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop, Fourier time 

message: We're scared. We want to go home.
A clearer description is at http://pathfinder.neutron-eu.net/idb/methods/spin-echo 83.67.75.74 (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can anyone dumb this down?