lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Personal area network

message: A Personal Area Network is not specifically designed for just computer use, it for any device to use around one's person (such as a walkman communicating to headphones).
I recommend changing the term computer devices to electronic devices.
-MrLaister 24/04/07
its the top network out there that a person can use personally  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.89.209.79 (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Computer Area Network??

message: I am seeing no references to the standards or protocols that "PAN" relies on.  The article is too heavily weighted in describing WPAN and radio technologies that can be used to carry PAN.  "PAN" should probably operate over most any connection, even persons banging rocks together.  The wireless carrier is a distractor and has moved the focus away from what PAN is.  Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is brief discussion of wired technology in Personal_area_network#Wired. ~Kvng (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protocols or Standards for PAN (not Wireless) 

message: The Skinplex section under WPAN does not describe how it incorporates PAN or WPAN.  From viewing the posted external link, it appears to be a near-field sensor and not an actual 802.15 data bus.  It also appears to be a commercial plug or advertisement.  This may be related to Body area network IEEE 802.15.6 but it is unclear.  If so, the section should be retitled as "Body Area Network" and possibly with Skinplex added as an example. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skinplex 

message: is a network between an individual to communicate between an  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.214.15.174 (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  pan
Talk:Quantum entanglement

message: There were many experimental results between the work of Chien-Shiung Wu and the modern work in the early 2010s from Zeilinger's group and others. In particular, the Nobel Prize winning experiments of Aspect, Clauser are nowhere mentioned here. It feels that the Nobel prize related to quantum entanglement deserves mentioning in this section.
Perhaps it is enough that it is included in the Bell test page, but it feels like there should at least be a cross link to the Bell test page to highlight the results. 129.16.138.72 (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry meant to say that it is mentioned in the History, but not in the notable experimental results section. I think more that things should be shuffled around in the article page to keep it consistent. Either it is historically relevant or it is experimentally relevant. Perhaps both? 129.16.138.72 (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a few sentances on the nobel prize of 2022 related to entanglement and bell tests 

message: Wikipedia now says:
"communications at the speed of light would have taken longer—in one case, 10,000 times longer—than the interval between the measurements".
Is it the same thing as the this? :
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/150207-chinese-physicists-measure-speed-of-einsteins-spooky-action-at-a-distance-at-least-10000-times-faster-than-light
"Chinese physicists measure speed of Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance': At least 10,000 times faster than light. 
By Sebastian Anthony March 7, 2013"
If yes, could we make the wikipedia more understandable for an average human or even an average educated person reading wikipedia?
Just say the speed is at lest 10^4 speed of light?
Has the speed not be estimated after year 2013, to verify results?
217.140.214.197 (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  At least 10,000 times faster than light
Talk:Censorship under fascist regimes

message: This article needs to be expanded considerably. Going just by the article's title, "regimes" implies more than one. As it stands, the article should be called "Censorship in Fascist Italy." I recommend an overhaul or otherwise a fresh start. --Impaciente 09:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious expansion, or recommend for AfD
Talk:Directed set

message: As you allude to "(partial) orders",
you could mention that a refexive and transitive relation is called a preorder.
For the type of preorder occuring here, I knew the terminology of "right filtering preorder".
Concerning limits, I knew them rather defined in terms of bases of filters instead of directed sets. Note that given a directed set A, you have canonically associated a base of filters (the set of all elements "bigger than" x, where x runs through A ; for a left filtering relation these are just the "balls of radius x"), but the converse is not true.
MFH 23:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  preorder and base of filters 

message: The definition at the top says that a directed set is a "right filtering preorder".  If "right filtering" is a general term, there should be a link to a definition.  I'm not sure where to look for one.  Also, right at the top is a description of how, starting with a and b with a ≤ b, you can create a sequence with a ≤ b ≤ c ≤ d ….  Since c, d, … can all be equal to b, this statement holds for any preorder, and doesn't seem the least bit interesting.  I'm removing it.  Dfeuer 18:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  right filtering
Talk:Regina Protmann

message: It's actually a very common and popular error to confuse Royal Prussia (integral part of Kigdom of Poland 1466-1772) with the Kingdom of Prussia (1701-1871). Check the well resourced, following articles Braniewo, Warmia and Royal Prussia. Now, I know that yours was a good faith edit, but it would be nice, if before reverting you actually check sources before blindly following your instincts. Sunday Hippie (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish Prussia
Talk:Lancaster, Ohio

message: I'll soon be rewriting this article, and adding a personally-taken photo to be released into the public domain, in an effort to restore this article to an encyclopedic tone. Ender78 00:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: See www.lanfest.org for information about Lancaster's summer music festival.
A committee has recently been formed to look into the possibility of opening a Performing Arts Center in downtown Lancaster.  It's hoped that an Opera House will bring music, dance and new jobs into Lancaster.  See www.operahouse.myfreeforum.org for more information. 172.190.174.134 21:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lancaster is being recognized for its arts and artists 

message: While I'm a fan of the various legends connected with the house, Ohio and the nation at large are heavily dotted with such houses of legend, and I hardly think that it's truly "notable". Rather the equivalent of making a special section for each town's "Lover's Lane". I'll pause here for comments on this matter, and as such, I deleted this segment. 70.62.164.12 (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mudhouse Mansion

message: but William Tecumseh Sherman gets two sentences? I guess we know where the priorities are.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csnoke (talk • contribs) 07:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hawk's Tavern gets  a paragraph...

message: I live in Lancaster Ohio, and I have some beautiful pictures I have taken myself, of the view from Mt. Pleasant.. was just wondering how to submit them ??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarrieJane1978 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Live in Lancaster Ohio and .. 
Talk:American bison

message: The main reference for the older census sizes of bison are from reference 95 (Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (January 1965). "The American Buffalo". Conservation Note. 12.).
I think it is slightly miscited since it is (from what I can tell) from 1977 and can be linked in full text here: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31822016984015&view=1up&seq=1
Further is is not a good reference or source for this number - at least not stated as a fact in this wiki article. The text reads: "At their peak (probably before the discovery of America) it is though that they may have numbered 60 or 70 millions." Rasmus.87 (talk) 10:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bison population sizes 

message: ...the logic behind "400,000-500,000 [in 2010]" transitioning into "31,000 [9 years later in 2019]" yet that's not critically endangered or endangered in reference to the original "[double digit] millions"? 173.80.7.142 (talk) 01:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The 400,000–500,000 was the total number of bison, both wild and commercial, in 2010. The 31,000 is referring to just wild bison in 2019. In the 2010 paragraph, a little further down, it reads that there are approximately 15,000 wild bison. I assume that that number refers to the 2010 population. That should probably be made clear. pillowcrow 17:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: And the double digit millions being brought down to a 5 digit number doesn't make it endangered...? 173.80.7.142 (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I understand now. I'm guessing you're talking about the "estimated population of 60 million in the late 18th century". While I don't know all the factors that play into the conservation status of a species, I would assume that it's not necessarily based on the number of individuals still extant as a percentage of a past number. I think it's more based on (or maybe entirely based on) the likelihood of the species becoming extinct. When the population went from 60 million to a few hundred individuals in the late 18th century, they were critically endangered (by modern standards), being just a few hundred reckless slaughters away from extinction. But then conservation efforts were introduced, and despite the still comparatively low numbers (500,000 vs 60 million) the American bison is nevertheless in no danger of becoming extinct. The wild bison are well protected (and so is their environment), and of course, the same would be said for the commercial herds. Therefore the bison is not endangered because it's not in danger of becoming extinct. In contrast, tigers are endangered because the likelihood of their extinction is high. There are fewer than 6,000 individuals in the wild (according to experts), their habitat is threatened, and there are only so many captive tigers in the world. And of course, we can't breed them like bison and make herds out of them. Hope that helps. pillowcrow 19:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone explain...
Talk:Opera buffa

message: The Opera Buffa article is brief and concise; as it should be for an opening definition.
However, I feel that Mozart has made an incredibly important effort to the rise and progress of Opera Buffa.  Mozart's operas embodied the social constructs of the day and catapulted them into the future. It is important to recognize these traditional views and how Mozart's operas reformed these ideas.  Specifically I am looking at Don Giovanni, Le Nozze di Figaro, and Cosi Fan Tutte which challenged the ideas of hierarchy and the role of women.  These three operas are 3 of the most recognizable operas in the style of buffa and it would be a shame not to focus on them and how they changed society.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klai01 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Klai01: Much of this new section (that you have just written) needs editing (lots of wrong capitalization, typos, English problems etc.) but much of it is also of limited relevance to this article (Mary Wollstonecraft etc.). I suggest moving usable material to the articles about the specific operas, where general discussions about social significance etc. are appropriate. --Kleinzach 05:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Section: Mozart's Opera Buffa
Talk:Supercomputer

message: Win the Scottish premier league 148.252.132.214 (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  League 

message: Vcvnv 2409:4073:4E83:DAC8:0:0:8B4A:F203 (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xh 

message: Super computer name 111.119.178.183 (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computer science 

message: living things ae things that have life in them. 196.175.2.99 (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  science 

message: Using the combination of the most powerful CPU, GPU and AI Acceleration from Intel Advances Scientific Research and Performance for New Wave of Supercomputers. Rjluna2 (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intel Advances Scientific Research and Performance for New Wave of Supercomputers 

message: Possibly include a section on the use of "supercomputers" for generating, training, and processing "AI" models. The applications section is currently tagged as a stub, so this could also go there. Silvanathecat (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  AI
Wikipedia talk:Writing better articles/Use colour sparingly

message: At present there are many articles in the Wikipedia namespace that seek to give guidance on how to write better articles. I propose consolidating these into a much smaller number. On User:Jongarrettuk/Better writing guide I propose how these could be consolidated. The proposal is not to change advice, just to consolidate it. If I have inadvertently moved what you consider to be good advice that is currently in the Wikipedia namespace, please re-add it. I'm hope that the proposal to merge all these articles, in principle, will be welcomed. Of course, it may be preferred to have 2, 3 or 4 inter-connected articles than just one and would welcome advice on how this could be done. (In particular, perhaps all the guidance on layout should be spun off into one consolidated article on layout.) I'm also aware that putting lots of different bits of advice together may throw up anomalies or bits that people now disagree with (including bits that I myself disagree with:) ). I ask for support for the consolidation. Once the consolidation has happened, the advice can be changed in the normal way. Please feel free to improve on the current draft consolidation, but don't remove or add advice that is not currently on the Wikipedia namespace. If all goes well, I'll add a new Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles page on the 19th, though maybe some bits of the new article will need to be phased in over a longer period. I'll also take care to preserve all the archived discussion in one place. jguk 19:56, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to consolidate advice on writing better articles

message: Can shades of gray be used safely in articles, especially for table backgrounds? Denelson83 03:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about neutral colors?
Wikipedia talk:Use subheadings sparingly

message: Given how much Wikipedia has grown since this was written (April 2002), we need to have it renamed and expanded to explain all the relevant cases. For example, today it's not at all uncommon to see a table of contents with a dozen entries, but this is normally fixed by having a good lead section and placing an image to the right of the ToC. This guideline still applies to shorter articles, but it needs elaboration. --Joy [shallot] 13:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Joy [shallot].  Headings, subheadings, and subsubheadings are extremely valuable in long articles.  The reader who has a specific area of interest should be able to look at the TOC and go directly to the relevant section.  In that context, I have no problem with a particular section that's fairly short.  For example, an article that's been criticized as overlong is John Kerry (currently 83kb).  I don't think it's overlong, because it has good structure.  Suppose a reader has heard that there's been controversy over Kerry's first Purple Heart.  The reader who wants to know the basics of that incident will find, in the TOC, a heading for Kerry's military service, a subheading for the time he spent commanding a Swift boat, and a subsubheading for the first Purple Heart.  That section has only one paragraph, but I think that's the correct organization. JamesMLane 10:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  evaluation needed
Wikipedia talk:Use short sentences and lists

message: At present there are many articles in the Wikipedia namespace that seek to give guidance on how to write better articles. I propose consolidating these into a much smaller number. On User:Jongarrettuk/Better writing guide I propose how these could be consolidated. The proposal is not to change advice, just to consolidate it. If I have inadvertently moved what you consider to be good advice that is currently in the Wikipedia namespace, please re-add it. I'm hope that the proposal to merge all these articles, in principle, will be welcomed. Of course, it may be preferred to have 2, 3 or 4 inter-connected articles than just one and would welcome advice on how this could be done. (In particular, perhaps all the guidance on layout should be spun off into one consolidated article on layout.) I'm also aware that putting lots of different bits of advice together may throw up anomalies or bits that people now disagree with (including bits that I myself disagree with:) ). I ask for support for the consolidation. Once the consolidation has happened, the advice can be changed in the normal way. Please feel free to improve on the current draft consolidation, but don't remove or add advice that is not currently on the Wikipedia namespace. If all goes well, I'll add a new Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles page on the 19th, though maybe some bits of the new article will need to be phased in over a longer period. I'll also take care to preserve all the archived discussion in one place. jguk 19:57, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to consolidate advice on writing better articles
Talk:IEEE 802.11

message: FYI - the Wi-Fi Alliance has announced a new designation naming scheme.
* Wi-Fi 6 to identify devices that support 802.11ax technology.
* Wi-Fi 5 to identify devices that support 802.11ac technology.
* Wi-Fi 4 to identify devices that support 802.11n technology.
https://www.wi-fi.org/news-events/newsroom/wi-fi-alliance-introduces-wi-fi-6
https://www.wi-fi.org/news-events/newsroom/wi-fi-alliance-introduces-wi-fi-certified-wpa3-security
• Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  WiFi 6 (new designation naming scheme) 

message: I've added more detailed info about 802.11 frame types, which I think would be too long and too detail to be crammed in single subsection of the article.  Currently it is not linked to this article (orphaned), but IMHO should be linked.
Buhadram (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Frame Types

message: Part of the history section of this article reads:
802.11 technology has its origins in a 1985 ruling by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission that released the ISM band for unlicensed use.
''
And references source [1]. Neither the current nor archived version of source [1] actually references 802.11 or any court ruling by name. Should the reference be removed? Trickypr (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious use of source [1] 

message: What exactly is a "spatial stream" ?
The term appears in every one of these Wikipedia 802.11 articles, 802.11n,ac,ax, and referenced MIMO links, &tc.  (and everywhere else on the internet).
But invariably, the only definitions of the concept are just substitutions of other words, like "multiplexing".
And some hand-waving about doing it with separate antennas.
That doesn't explain even fundamentally what it is and how it's accomplished.
For later 802.11 variants (802.11ax) it's easy to understand segregation of OFDMA subcarrier bands, much like channel bonding, that's a good starting point for the concept.
Otherwise, for earlier 802.11 levels where "spatial stream" originated, what is it, how is it accomplished.  Slots, timeslice, request+grants, what
2601:40D:8100:9400:6972:CAEC:953C:4038 (talk) 07:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spatial Streams
Wikipedia talk:Check your facts

message: At present there are many articles in the Wikipedia namespace that seek to give guidance on how to write better articles. I propose consolidating these into a much smaller number. On User:Jongarrettuk/Better writing guide I propose how these could be consolidated. The proposal is not to change advice, just to consolidate it. If I have inadvertently moved what you consider to be good advice that is currently in the Wikipedia namespace, please re-add it. I'm hope that the proposal to merge all these articles, in principle, will be welcomed. Of course, it may be preferred to have 2, 3 or 4 inter-connected articles than just one and would welcome advice on how this could be done. (In particular, perhaps all the guidance on layout should be spun off into one consolidated article on layout.) I'm also aware that putting lots of different bits of advice together may throw up anomalies or bits that people now disagree with (including bits that I myself disagree with:) ). I ask for support for the consolidation. Once the consolidation has happened, the advice can be changed in the normal way. Please feel free to improve on the current draft consolidation, but don't remove or add advice that is not currently on the Wikipedia namespace. If all goes well, I'll add a new Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles page on the 19th, though maybe some bits of the new article will need to be phased in over a longer period. I'll also take care to preserve all the archived discussion in one place. jguk 20:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to consolidate advice on writing better articles

message: What the *hell* does this mean?
"You should write that P only if it is true that P; contraposing, if it is not true that P, you should not write that P."
:I concur.  Someone that doesn't know to check their facts isn't going to be enlightened by this "logic".  Protect our newbies from this.  Consolidate!  -- A D Monroe III 22:36, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: An important policy discussion has started concerning ways in which our content-related polices, such as NPOV, No original research and Verifiability could be better enforced. I've made a proposal to give the Arbitration Committee the ability to consult Wikipedia users who are knowledgeable in   subject-areas that apply to cases before them. Such consultation is needed due to the fact that the ArbCom does not by itself have the requisite knowledge to easily tell what is NPOV, original research, or a fringe idea in every field. Please read my proposal at  Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC#Alternate solution #9 by mav. Content subcommittee and comment. Thank you! --mav 02:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC]]