lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Singular value

message: The definition of singular value given here is not general enough for the article singular value decomposition, since over there we need the concept for non-square matrices as well. AxelBoldt 16:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: What's "singular" about a singular value? (Why the name?) —Ben FrantzDale 16:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to my math prof, it's just that these are the values that make (\sqrt{A^*A}-\lambda I) singular. —Ben FrantzDale 21:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "singular"? 

message: What is the meaning of |A| as mentioned in the article? --Drizzd (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am told that |A| is in fact defined as \sqrt{A^* A}, and therefore the previous formulation did not make any sense. I now expanded |A| to U |\Lambda| U^* for the unitary diagonalization A = U \Lambda U*. |\Lambda| can now be interpreted as either \sqrt{\Lambda* \Lambda} or as taking element-wise absolute value, because both give the same result. --Drizzd (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is |A|? 

message: Who the hell calls them "s-number"? That's the first time I've heard the term. I'm moving this back to "Singular value". Swap (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  S-number 

message: I have a question: It is known that the max singular value is an operator norm (more precisly the one described here talks about the through the ||. ||2 induced operator Norm). Since the max singular value is a kind of strongest amplification of a system/ norm and since one can use different norms to define an induced operator norm, is the max singular value only limited or defined with the 2 induced norm or can one define it with any other norm???? Best regards مبتدئ (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: singular value and operator norm

message: Can anyone add a chapter about what a structured singular value is? مبتدئ (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chapter needed

message: Wouldn't it be better to merge this article with Singular Value Decomposition? It's far more complete and defines singular values in a much better way then this article does... anoko_moonlight (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Singular Value Decomposition]]

message: Hello,
singular values are also called s-numbers as stated in the article, but s-number redirects to Meter Point Administration Number without any notice that singular value is also a valid meaning. Can someone with knowledge in the English Wikipedia (I only edit the German one regulary) add this?
Kind regards,
ThE cRaCkEr 14:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  s-number: redirect 

message: Why does T have to be self-adjoint for max singular value to become operator norm?
max_x \frac{||Tx||}{||x||} = max_x \frac{||UDV^*x||}{||x||} = max_y \frac{||Dy||}{||y||} = max s(T),
where y = V^* x
* You are right, removed the self-adjoint condition because it is unnecessary and really confusing. Yvanko55 (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "If T is self-adjoint, then the largest singular value s1(T) is equal to the operator norm of T"
Portal talk:Physics

message: The portal has been expanded with the addition of new Good- and Featured article sections. The article selections listed below were added. Additional expansion, updating and cleanup was also performed. If anyone is interested, please feel free to discuss these changes here. North America1000 07:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal expanded 

message: When a fan is switched ON or OFF,  the speed of a particals of a fan go on increasing or decreasing for some time,  however their directions are tangential to their circular trajectories. During this time,  it is non-uniform circular motion. Rohan Gajbhiye (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Non-uniform circular motion 

message: It seems that this thing was a dream. There is a |  wikiversity.org School:Physics_and_Astronomy. Maybe that should be linked instead? Or not, but the dead link does no one good. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete the Physics Textbook link
Talk:Future-proof

message: This article doesn't make sense if one doesn't already know what "Future proof" means. Someone please change it to describe what it actually means, especially in the introductory section of the article? Thanks!
--dionyziz (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errr... definition? 

message: Someone has added a tag requesting sources and references. But how can one reference such a thing. This is a phrase in common language, not a citable fact we can look up somewhere. So, please if you added that tag - why? --DuLithgow 19:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Someone suggested a merge with DigitalPreservation , but they left no comments for discussion, so I hid the proposal. I don't think the two things are the same at all. I prefer it the way it is. _Something_ should be on a page called FutureProof and yes the link to DigitalPreservation should be there as it is now. --DuLithgow 20:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital Preservation 

message: using a non-propiertry, free, open file format!
Nothing can be made totally future proof - like fools the future is too ingenious.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.63.76 (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Such as 

message: This page was identified as including a disambiguation error based on the term "AEC".
In order to resolve this problem I have removed the wikilink from the term as I am unable to determine, from the context, what the term is referring to.  If you wish to restore the link please ensure that the term and the link are fully resolved. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  AEC Disambiguation 

message: Back in 2013, this article went from being brief and concise (and flagged as needing citations) to a major article (+22,595 characters, including 20 citations) due to the work of one contributor who has only ever touched this one page (the edits since then have been mostly related to formatting and minor content tweaks here and there).  I think this was an over-correction.  This is now far too large an article for such a simple term.  Furthermore, I worry about the difficulty to verify the offline citations from an unproven user (though that is not nearly enough grounds to remove them!). Adam KatzΔ☎ 23:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too verbose? 

message: I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited material in need of citations

message: Like the lead. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title should be a noun
Talk:Quick clay

message: -this stuff was always my favourite geotechnical horror.  --Zeizmic 17:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: The quick clay problem with Highway 416 was not near Kemptville, as stated.  It was the section of the highway passing near Baseline Road in Nepean (Ottawa). Set theorist (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highway 416 construction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Quick clay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051024191116/http://geoscape.nrcan.gc.ca:80/ottawa/landslides_e.php to http://geoscape.nrcan.gc.ca/ottawa/landslides_e.php
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100710061643/http://www.canadiangeographic.ca:80/magazine/so05/indepth/soc_lemieux.asp to http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/so05/indepth/soc_lemieux.asp
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061003113824/http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/416/conquer.htm to http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/416/conquer.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050304045727/http://www.ce.washington.edu:80/%7Egeotech/courses/cee522/RissaLandslide/rissa.html to http://www.ce.washington.edu/~geotech/courses/cee522/RissaLandslide/rissa.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051024191116/http://geoscape.nrcan.gc.ca:80/ottawa/landslides_e.php to http://geoscape.nrcan.gc.ca/ottawa/landslides_e.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
 — Gorthian (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified
Talk:Michael addition reaction

message: It only mentions the Robinson annulation as a subsequent reaction. There is another fault, however, in that Michael Additions are not always between C and C. They can occur in thiols (recall Benzyl mercaptan + Allyl Maleimide).
That is not true.  The addition of thiols to Michael acceptors is a conjugate addition, not a Michael addition. Eugene Kwan 11:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

message: In case someone wants to add it in properly:  I think this is RSC:RXNO_0000009  :)
--RProgrammer (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkage 

message: The reference
  Kohler. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1907, 37, 385
does not exist. JACS 1907 is Vol. 29; JACS Vol 37 is 1915.
Presumably this is E.P. Kohler.
E.P. Kohler's first paper in JACS was in 1916. In that paper, , Kohler does state:
Although this paper deals only with the addition of nitroparaffins
to benzalacetophenone, work now in progress shows that, under proper
conditions, aliphatic nitro compounds combine quite generally with
alpha-beta-unsaturated ketones, with many unsaturated esters, unsaturated
nitriles, and even with unsaturated nitro compounds.
Michael is not mentioned.
Thus, I cannot find the reference to Kohler proposing a new definition of "Michael reaction". 
Hansonrstolaf (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello! It's been a while since you've brought this concern up, but I'm wondering if you had any luck finding a source to support this claim? I see the current "wrong" citation almost cited exactly the same in this paper  but I'm not seeing anything for it either. I want to do a deep-dive and try and find where this information came from, otherwise it may need to be taken off the page. Let me know if you have any input! Sach548 (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kohler 

message: — Assignment last updated by Tiff592 (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: CHEM 300

message: The discussion in the first paragraph talks about the R" group but the diagram only has an R group and an R' group, with no R" group. 2600:1700:B8B0:2FE0:B08D:A457:B9CB:3D78 (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion has R" but diagram doesn't
Talk:Jack Black (rat catcher)

message: Is this where Jack Black the actor got his name?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.84.127 (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Black Actor 

message: File:Jack Black.jpg
File:Das festliche Jahr img364 Her Majestys Rat-catcher.jpg
I disagree with this edit. It doesn't matter that the image is "rare". It adds nothing to the article. The article already has a nearly identical image. The new image adds no useful content to the article.--Srleffler (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The images are not identical and they are different.  They help to add context to his biography article. IQ125 (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images
Talk:History of the United States Constitution

message: I can find no support for the claim that "George Washington was unwilling to attend an irregular convention like failed Annapolis Convention."  I can only find that claim on some unauthenticated places and fringe websites (also worded nearly identically across multiple sites).  I suggest a credible citation be found or else it should be deleted.PubliusSpiritus (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need cite to support claim "George Washington was unwilling to attend an irregular convention like failed Annapolis Convention." 

message: I can find no reference for the claim "New York and others hesitated thinking that only the Continental Congress could propose amendments to the Articles."  I suggest a credible citation be found or else it should be deleted.PubliusSpiritus (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need cite to support claim "New York and others hesitated thinking that only the Continental Congress could propose amendments to the Articles" 
Talk:X∞Multiplies

message: Actaully, 
what's been written here is about the *US* release of this name, 
which was actually just a silly compilation!
The proper "x infinity multiples" was a Japanese 10" single, 
with the tunes "NICE AGE" and "TIGHTEN UP", 
and a load of hilarrrrrrrious crazy-ass talky bits
--feline1 17:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Not sure where this should go, but I thought it should be recorded somewhere: the cover for Chonmage Tengoku in DEEP (a compilation of "chanbara" or jidai-geki TV show theme songs from Japan) is a very obvious parody of / homage to the cover for X∞Multiplies, using samurai instead of the members of YMO.
Here's a link to the cover on Amazon.jp:  for reference.
Question: as neither extant Chonmage Tengoku album has a wiki entry (English or Japanese), does it make sense to add this factoid to this page?  Or create a page for those albums and link this one to them?
Thanks — Sleet01 (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  X∞Multiplies cover and Chonmage Tengoku in DEEP
Talk:Bloody Code

message: Hello, I am a college student in the class History of English Culture in Ca'Foscari University. As a midterm project, I would be working on improving this page! Any comments or help will be much welcomed. :) Eslee110 (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, useful history info. Nasty stuff though! --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 19:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: Why is this article almost entirely devoid of sources?  It makes me suspicious that this is all a copy and paste job or is just someone typing what they vaguely remember from a history class.  Are there not sources on this topic?Jdlund (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Sources 

message: I've divided the article into sections and removed the tag. Feel free to change it. ArdClose (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: I reverted this:  The reason for the rise in the amount of capital offences in the late 17th century, the 18th century and the early 19th century is that the wealthy law makers were extremely worried about crime towards their property and wealth. The rich during this time were getting richer and thus they had more to lose from crime against their property, so the obvious solution for them was to make offences against property punishable by death. One could be hanged at Tyburn for stealing something as little as lace! The Lawmakers thought that by making crime against property punishable by death, people who would steal or damage property would be deterred from offending, so the wealthy people's possesions would be protected, or so was thought.
Interesting if true, but it needs a source.  I didn't 'citation needed' it because it's so large.  If anybody can source this, it's a valid contribution!142.103.225.18 (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: It become known as the bloody code retrospectively, so when and by which historians originally?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term 

message: The Blackstone quote which mentions the phrase is not understandable to me, even after looking up the mean of "Benefit of Clergy" -- what is meant by "instant death"? Is this to be taken literally or does it also have a legal meaning here?--Jrm2007 (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefit of Clergy? 
Category talk:Special territories of the European Union

message: (discussion moved from User talk:Seabhcan)
I notice the creation of :Category:Special territories of the EU. The category (or at least a number of the articles currently categorised thereunder) seems rather misleading/unhelpful in that some of the territories are not in the European Union at all and can therefore hardly be described as being territories of the EU. Greenland at least used to be in the EU... Would you care to have a look at removing incorrect categorisations? Or renaming the category perhaps along the lines of Territories with special relationships with the EU (bit of a mouthful, though!). Sîncéthement Man vyi 18:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, fair point. I'd prefer the re-nameing option as even Greenland has a close relationship with the EU. Dispite being outside it, Danish citizens who live there are EU citizens. All the territories I put in this category have an explicit legal relationship with the EU which has been codified in some treaty or other - and so it does make sense to put them in one category. How about "Special territories and the EU"? (Short but accurate) or "EU member special territories"? I'll copy this conversation to Category talk:Special territories of the EU and wait for comment before doing anything. Seabhcán 18:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: European Union member special territories seems more reasonable to me. Man vyi 05:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed category renaming

message: I read "somewhere" that there is an area of land belonging to the Papacy (from the time in Avignon), which is currently managed by the local commune.
If this is still an active issue it could be noted here.
Ditto Upper Savoy and Gex which is "open" to Switzerland. Jackiespeel 16:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Papal territories in France
Talk:Papal inauguration

message: I see this article as having real good potential to be being nominated as a "Good Article". It does have a slight POV tint that a little rewording could make more neutral and I would certainly recommend doing more with the history section. But again, it's a nice article and the editors' should be proud.205.157.110.11 20:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Close to being nominated for a "good article"

message: I'd think the details on who and when weared the papal tiara would belong in its own page, especially since the mention bloats the head of the article, and there is already a separate article detailing what the whole tiara affair is about. Instead, I'd substitute a skeletal description of the ceremony in the introduction.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decoy (talk • contribs) 20:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excess detail overlapping Papal tiara 

message: We just had the installation of Pope Francis today (a Tuesday), and I have recalled reading that the installation of Pope John XXIII (as it stands now, the next-to-most recent one to have a coronation) was also on a Tuesday (Nov. 4, 1958).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  usually on a Sunday? 

message: Why are we even including this?  It is clearly a fringe issue, and more importantly, uncited. I'm requesting consensus for removing the entire paragraph.  Uberhill 23:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papal Oath conspiracy theory 
Talk:James Heckman

message: That he accepts a professorship at Dublin, doesn't mean he move out from Chicago, does he?--B.F.Pinkerton 21:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: professorship at Dublin

message: This is another photo, for when this article grows up and there will be space for more pictures AdamSmithee 08:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Quite simply his research failed replication, see Zisman & Ganzach 2022. I believe its very important to change this part since he is a Nobel Laureate and hence considered an authority, in economic not psychology. 2A02:AA1:102D:DBC8:918E:F17A:8D51:190C (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  His research on IQ is highly debated
Talk:Languages of India

message: Hindi is not our official language. India having more numbers of native languages. He don't have any official language and all. Even suprime court of india uses English in their petition. All the state government uses their own native languages has their communication between other states so there is no official language india has. 2405:201:D010:21BE:F443:EA68:8F07:64A9 (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Article 343(1) of the Constitution provides that Hindi in Devanagari script shall be the Official Language of the Union. See this. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not true  

message: The link to "classical languages" should redirect to "classical languages of India" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Languages_of_India) and not to "classical language" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_language) as it currently stands. WizardLuigi (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: RegentsPark (comment) 13:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical Languages of India 

message: Can someone with an account add in a semicolon (;) to the first sentence (between 'Indians' and 'both'), so as to replace the comma.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.93.75.130 (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks for pointing it out. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semicolon in First Sentence 

message: Error: more than once - it is “number of speakers” not “amount of speaking”. Patrick Pregiato (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thank you. Let us know if you see others. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar
Talk:Keying (vandalism)

message: Does anyone have any opinion any word that can substitue "vandalism" so that the word has nothing to do with its Wikipedia meaning. (FYI the word's Wikipedia meaning is the only meaning I've been used to prior to 2 days ago.) Georgia guy 20:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's necessary to change the word "vandalism".  Wikipedia vandalism is named after real-world vandalism, not vice-versa.  WP:ASR doesn't specifically mention this sort of situation, but I think that it covers it in spirit.  Same for WP:NOT, though to a lesser degree (specifically, the part about Wikipedia being an encyclopedia first, and a community in service to that goal).  Pages about intra-wikipedia matters, like vandalism of articles, are in a different namespace (recognizable by the Wikipedia: or WP: before the page name), so there's no need to change articles in the main namespace to prevent confusion. ----Icarus (Hi!) 20:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Alfredo Palacio

message: Could we get a temporary protect for this? Amerika 22:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandal seems to have gone... –Hajor 22:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: "Palacio maintains he is "not a politician" because he belongs to no political party, and he used this as an excuse to avoid getting lynched by a mob on April 20."
Is this true, I think lynching might be an over exaggeration, if it is true, it needs a citation. --Horses In The Sky 18:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it as no one had come up with a source.--Jersey Devil 04:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lynching