lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Newton–Cotes formulas

message: I looked at this, the English is janky and the analysis is non-standard.  This does not mean that it is wrong per se, it is just original research, not peer-reviewed, and probably does not belong here (yet).  Please provide references to peer-reviewed consideration of the frequency domain analysis techinque, or I will remove these citations and the paragraph in the text.
2001:BB8:2002:200:BC5E:FF88:CC3A:BD81 (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research from Pavel 

message: In the beginning of the article it is stated that an exponentially increasing error may occur as n increases due to Runge's phenomenon. However, this should not be the case. Runge's phenomenon relates to using an increasingly higher-order polynomial approximation. For a fixed Newton-Cotes formula (e.g., Simpson's 3/8 rule), the order of the approximating polynominal is fixed. As n increases it is the step size h that is decreasing. 
Elee1l5 19:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The n referred to the order of the approximating polynomial. You're thinking of composite rules, which are discussed further down. However, you have a good point that the text is confusing. I tried to improve it. I also moved that part out of the first paragraph; I don't think it's that important because high-order quadrature formulas are not used very often. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: After thinking it over, I'm backtracking about it being not so important. Actually, even for order 8 (which is definitely used in practice), Gaussian quadrature has clearly lower error than Newton-Cotes. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increasing ''n'' 

message: Closed Newton–Cotes Formulas
and Open Newton-cotes Formulas.. seem to be a bit unusual.
e.g. Simpson Rule: is should not be 1/3*(1+4+1)  better 1/6*... as written on simpson page. or am i understanding something wrong?
Amegon 13:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on how you define the step size h. In this article, h is x_{i+1}-x_i while on the Simpson rule page, h is b-a which is twice as big. That's why the coefficient differs by a factor 2. I re-stated the definition of h in this article just above the table, but perhaps we use the same definition on both pages. This seems to cause quite a bit of confusion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

text: This is again a factor two: \frac{{(b-a)}^{5}}{2880} = \frac{1}{90} \bigl(\frac{b-a}{2}\bigr)^5 , which is the formula for the error on the page Simpson's rule. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

text: It would be useful to see that ″another article″. However it looks like another problem related with the step size (see the reply to the first comment). 1/4 is consistent with the value of h usid in this article.194.230.155.218 (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coefficients
Talk:Philippine trademark law

message: This article reads like an essay or study.  It even includes a conclusions and recommentation section. -- Whpq 19:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I agree, as well as a general cleanup this article discusses fundamental concepts in the law of trade marks. Much could be removed or condensed and a link provided to Trade Mark. Any reaction to this or the previous comment? Avalon 02:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was created by Sarabinx on 12 March 2006 and has been long outstanding on the August 2006 backlog page of the Wikify WikiProject. I've posted a message on the user's talk page, asking for input. —XhantarTalk 07:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by her contributions,  it looks like she's not coming back.  I'll get started on removing some of the gunk (that conclusions section will be the first to go).  RedRollerskate 16:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup & Links
Talk:Helictite

message: at near 100% humidity and varying pressures (not wind) could minerals form as if in a water rock garden ? = Helictite          
this is a question  any constructive answers or pointers on where to ask such questions would be much appreciated
thanks much 
matt  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.43.54 (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  question ?  

message: The following sentence is from the description of formation of helectites page.  “However, the majority of helectites are not hollow”
I can not find a single report which backs up this statement.
I would like to know where it originated. 
Thanks 2001:8003:844E:CA00:615F:99D1:C711:8BAA (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do all Helectites have a central canal?
Talk:ADALINE

message: I just created the page, but I am having difficulty figuring out the differences between perceptron and ADALINE.  Could someone outline the difference please Paskari 19:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is only in the training algorithm.  Perceprtron training updates depend only on the sign of the weighted sum, relative to the target, while Adaline training uses the value before the sign thresholding.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Perceptron vs ADALINE

message: User:Neøn proposes to merge with Madaline. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 06:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Madaline?
Talk:James Alpin McPherson

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Wikipeep 494 06:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: Currently the article has 23 instances of "McPherson" and 14 of "MacPherson". Only references 1, 7, 10 & 18 support the former, whereas references 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16 & 17 give it as "Macpherson". In particular, reference 3 quotes a letter where he signs himself as "James Macpherson" (page 14, ePage 16). I will change all instances - but am unsure about changing the article title.  61.69.163.109 (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @61.69.163.109 "Currently" as in "Before I edited it".  60.241.80.90 (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @60.241.80.90 "The editor formerly known as 61.69.163.109" (I didn't expect it to change so soon.) 60.241.80.90 (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  McPherson / MacPherson / Macpherson
Talk:El Nacional (Venezuela)

message: Among many other issues with the recent "Political stance and editorial opinion" section, one of the main ones is WP:SYNTH: it is sourcing information related to Miguel Henrique Otero to conclude that the same positions are shared by the newspaper. NoonIcarus (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem for the removal of this specific material. However, El Nacional is widely described as an opposition newspaper. WMrapids (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political stance
Talk:Joseph Huber (economist)

message: This article is just a stub and needs help from an economist. Jeff Carr 19:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Official party status

message: I changed this from 4 to 2, as with the redistribution of seats before the 2015 election (there are fewer in the NL House of Assembly) the NL Speaker ruled that 2 seats are now the new requirement for party status.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brent Cotter (talk • contribs) 16:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newfoundland and Labrador Seat Requirement 

message: The article is misleading in stating that it is a Canadian practice as it also exists here in Australia.
Here is one example:
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/katter-accuses-lnp-and-labor-of-cash-grab-20121129-2aj0n.html
"Katter’s Australian Party (KAP) was granted official party status by the Queensland parliament at 5pm (AEST) on Thursday, after Liberal National Party (LNP) MP Ray Hopper defected to its ranks on the weekend." 122.108.156.100 (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is not a Canadian practice
Talk:Associated British Foods

message: I note that the majority of this article is about a court case concerning one of the subsidiaries of Associated British Foods.  This seems to breach Wikipedia guidelines.   The entry on Microsoft, for example, does not go into such details about Microsoft's legal woes.
I question the relevance of including all this information in an article that is supposed to contain general information about the company.  The detailed discussion of the 2004 litigation against George Weston Foods seems to very out of place in this article, and suggests a bias against (or an unhealthy obsession with) Associated British Foods and its subsidiaries.  Surely a brief mention of the case and the external link at the bottom of the page is more than sufficient?   Pinglis 10:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: The last three history paragraphs are all quite negative. Are we focusing too much on certain minor issues? Stifle (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV check 

message: www.naija-space.com.ng KARO4JAMES (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  NAIJA-SPACE 
Talk:Saʽd ibn ʽUbadah

message: Even though this is only a stub, I do not feel that this meets the WP:BIO guidelines for WP:RS on the citations ... they're simply online articles/books that have not been the subject of independent review. Without these dubious references, this stub (untouched for a month) is just WP:OR. 
Also read Talk:Imamate: The Vicegerency of the Prophet to see where this article is part of a house of cards by the author to create a false impression of notability for subjects by using the same "published" source for this and other articles. --72.75.72.174 01:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you have anything better to do than putting tags on stubs? There is nothing to clean up. --Striver - talk 23:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  prod 

message: I think this needs editing. It is confusing. The fourth paragraph says that Sa'd bin 'Ubadah died during the caliphate of Abu Bakr yet the third paragraph says that he did not accept Umar as caliphate. How could he, if he had already passed on?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.184.30 (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing
Talk:W. S. Karunaratne

message: I am the author of this article "W.S.Karunaratne".  This is the article that should be published.  Due to misunderstanding of the instructions, I eneded up creating 2 articles with the same information with different names.  
Request to keep this article "W.S.Karunaratne" and delete "Prof. W.S. Karunaratne".
--Karu99s 19:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Tom Monroe (disc golfer)

message: There doesn't seem to be an article on Steady Ed Headrick. Any help getting that wiki entry off the ground would be most appreciated! Get quad 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See disc golf for a Headrick section that should be moved to its own article, summarized and linked to with  at original location.  PS: It is probably more effective to post things like this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf, if that project touches disc golf, than on unrelated bio's talk pages. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 14:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another bio to add: Headrick

message: I believe Tom played in the International Frisbee Tournament in Michigan.  Not the National Frisbee Tournament.  It’s the IFT,  which is having it’s 66th this year.
Larry Letts Rallygut (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  IFT
Talk:Habab ibn Mundhir

message: Even though this is only a stub, I do not feel that this meets the WP:BIO guidelines for WP:RS on the citations ... they're simply online articles/books that have not been the subject of independent review. Without these dubious references, this stub (untouched for a month) is just WP:OR. 
Also read Talk:Imamate: The Vicegerency of the Prophet to see where this article is part of a house of cards by the author to create a false impression of notability for subjects by using the same "published" source for this and other articles. --72.75.72.174 01:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the article of a sahaba, a books notability or lack thereof does not affect this articles subject. --Striver - talk 00:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  prod
Talk:Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America

message: A section on the funding for the documentary would be a good addition -  Cwobeel (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding
Talk:Long Beach, Mississippi

message: Um, The library is not damaged beyond all repair.  I'm looking at it from my house as we speak! Linknumbers 19:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I like the friendship oak but thorough discussion of it in the Education section is unneeded.  I suggest that a separate section speak about the Friendship oak and its History.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.168.179.155 (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different section for Friendship Oak 
Talk:Canada Life Assurance Company

message: I propose to merge The Great-West Life Assurance Company, Canada Life Financial, and London Life Insurance Company into The Great-West Life Assurance Company, with the merged page renamed and moved to Canada Life on the basis that it is the latter two companies that are merging into The Great-West Life Assurance Company and being renamed under the former Canada Life branding/moniker. I think that the content in the The Great-West Life Assurance Company article can easily be explained in the context of The Great-West Life Assurance Company, Canada Life Financial, and London Life Insurance Company, and the The Great-West Life Assurance Company, Canada Life Financial, and London Life Insurance Company articles are all of a reasonable size that the merging of the trio into The Great-West Life Assurance Company will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned.
Note, too, that as separate stub-class pages, there is no prospect for standalone notability as there will be no future prospects of significant coverage and corporate depth. Note further that the merger vote passed by 90% of participating policyholders at the respective companies' policyholder meetings October 3, 2019, and the merger will be completed December 31, 2019, with the consolidated entities continuing under Canada Life January 1, 2020.
To non-involved admin or editor closer: Following consensus, we will require either an administrator or editor with page move permissions in order to perform a round-robin page swap with Canada Life to suppress the redirect. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have just completed the first step, I will continue to work on the articles over the holidays.  I just had surgery, and my energy is low.  That's the bad news.  The good news is, I'll have time to devote to Wikipedia the next couple of weeks.  Regards, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 06:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: At that point, we'd rename using a round-robin page swap to Canada Life consistent with WP:COMMONNAME. In terms of the merger logistics, I was thinking of having a "History" or "Origins" section, with each of the former companies being a next-level sub-section. We could potentially merge later to Great-West Lifeco, but I think that's something that should be discussed later. Doug Mehus  T·C 01:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Unless I'm wrong and Wikipedia's Manual of Style has changed, it's not necessary to wikilink to the news source for the References section. Before my edit, there were two refs with wikilinks pointing to the CBC (disambiguation) page. So I redid these two by making them Cite news and used the Publicaton field for CBC News Manitoba. Jimj wpg (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations
Talk:Nancy Roman

message: The "Mother of Hubble" is not mentioned in name in the Hubble Space Telescope (except in a ref) Golan's mom (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not mentioned in the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] 

message: Personal life makes no mention of time spent in Maryland, but Education lists high school in Baltimore. GenacGenac (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  High school in Baltimore 

message: As to the date of death, unfortunately Tomcat was misled by the NY Times.  The obit on the Times clearly states she died on Wednesday which was the 26th.  However, as was correctly reported by AP and widely elsewhere, she died on Tues, Christmas day, Dec 25th.  (q.v.: https://apnews.com/dd5233540f364eb1b8c2973446cfde15)  
fair disclosure: I may have a conflict of interest issue; my wife is the subject's cousin.
Joev.mich (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Death was the 25th 

message: Para 3 says "3000 publications". Should this be 3000 citations, i.e. cited by 3000 individual other articles/publications or is this a difference in US/UK usage?TSRL (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Chicago/Yerkes

message: Why is Kevin France listed as a related article? His work is. I more related to Nancy Grace Roman as that of hundreds of other astronomers. Guanaco23 (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related article Kevin France
Talk:1930s in the United States

message: I don't think this should be deleted yet.  There are many decade and "by year" articles for various topics, such as architecture, baseball, music, etc.  This pages may be slow in development, but I can see them as part of a timeline, complementing History of the United States (1918–1945). I think having these pages as stubs (at this point) is okay. --Aude (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prod
Talk:1940s in the United States

message: I don't think this should be deleted yet.  There are many decade and "by year" articles for various topics, such as architecture, baseball, music, etc.  These pages may be slow in development, but I can see them as part of a timeline, complementing History of the United States (1918–1945). I think having these pages as stubs (at this point) is okay. --Aude (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prod
Talk:Arms-to-Iraq affair

message: Merge fever sometimes gets out of hand. . .  'Supergun affair' redirects here, but there's no mention of it here, and it does, in fact, warrant a separate article.  What happens to that old redirect (which is actually about a notorious (and noteworthy) incident regarding a Canadian selling a supergun to Saddam Hussein, so I can't understand why that fascinating incident is buried in this related, but distinct topic) when this merges into 'British_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war' ?  This is getting seriously out of hand here, people. Sigma-6 (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'Iraq supergun' in fact has its own article, at Project Babylon. 'Supergun affair' should redirect there, if it doesn't already. Robofish (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Merge Merge 

message: I think we should merge this article into the wider and bigger British_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war article. Imad marie (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And redirect this page. Agree. ~ smb 18:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 
Talk:Definitional concerns in anarchist theory

message: I've started to fill in the content on this page. Libertatia 19:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

message: The outline already provided is useful, although we'll probably want to adapt it as new issues arise. Here are some of the things that, it seems to me, need to be addressed here:
* Mutualism: We need to differentiate at the very least the early theories of Proudhon and Greene, which explicitly attempted to synthesize and harmonize existing systems, from the later use of the term to designate the economic aspects of individualist anarchism.
* Socialism: It should be possible to document the long-standing struggles over the meaning of this term, referencing texts like Ernest Lesigne's "Socialistic Letter" and Brad Spangler's recent post on anarcho-capitalism as "socialism." 
* Capitalism: We need to clarify the two common uses of the term, as we have done on a couple of the related pages. 
* Property: Most importantly, we need to document Proudhon's use of the term in its various steps: his initial distinction between "possession" and "property", his association of the term "property" with capitalist economics and his rejection of Leroux's strategy of using the term "property" in two opposing ways, and his adoption of the term "property" in order to forward "its aims." 
In each case, we really need, in my opinion, to stick with more-than-ordinary tenacity to the job of documenting different uses of the terms, editorializing as little as possible. If this page is to be useful, we'll have to stay clear of anything that smacks of OR. Libertatia 21:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enumerating the Concerns
Talk:Jammy Award

message: Did the Jammys finish in 2008 ?  If so, the article does not state that.  If they continued then the article needs updating; quite considerably if they run to the present.  I have no knowledge of this event, but I assume some editors will know the present status.  Thanks, - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Time span
Talk:Ralph Fasanella

message: It seems there should be at least one picture for this guy.  If he's a great painter, why is one of his works not displayed?
:Because they are all copyrighted!  That's why.  And Wikipedia can't publish copyrighted images. - 1965Tim 00:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Bavarian Forest

message: A whole page about a forest and not a single sentence about the plants or wildlife. 122.58.129.135 (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about a forest, it's about mountains. It says so right in the article: "In older cartographic and lexical works, the term "Bavarian Forest" refers only to the mountainous region of the Danube Hills". The Black Forest isn't primarily a forest either, it's a mountain area. Sorry, that's just something the German language does. Wegesrand (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Polavision

message: I have fact-tagged the 1985 date. It is not correct. I have an instruction manual for an autoprocessor that is dated 11/83 and a supplimentary instruction sheet for it that is dated 12/84. Meowy 00:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Was introduced into Britain in 1983. There is an article about its technology in the September 83 issue of "Camera". Have changed 1985 date to 1983. Meowy 15:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polaroid instant slide film
Talk:Cyrus and John

message: Is it wise to state, "it is certain that no written records of them were known prior to then." in such absolute terms? The author of this article obviously knows a great deal about the subject, but because he doesn't know of any such records, it doesn't follow that none exist, does it? Somebody may have known of prior records and his knowledge been lost; or his knowledge may even now be preserved in some obscure place; or such a manuscript may be discovered this very day. Dawright12 (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Veneration
Talk:Brigadeiro Faria Lima Avenue

message: Strait translation of the PT version. If you can link to here, do it!! :) thx
Charlesblack 20:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Creation of Page