lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Paraelectricity

message: Somebody should explain the cooling phenomenon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.175.26 (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

message: There is no fundamental difference between what is termed a paraelectric and a dielectric. The term paralectric is used primarily in contexts where a ferroelectric material is above its Curie temperature, but it is exactly the same as a regular dielectric in physical properties. It is best if there would be only one article. --Polaron | Talk 16:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge into Dielectric 

message: I see no reason why not. The two are the same.
Olleicua (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes
Talk:Ecological thinning

message: Can you define 'silviculturalused'. The Boy that time forgot 20:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: To avoid some of the confusion that comes with Thinning vs Pruning terminology used interchangeably (discussion: Talk:Thinning), as well as looking at the way the existing articles are structured (pruning=individual plants, thinning=groups of tree/crops) - it might make sense to merge the "Thinning" article into the existing "Ecological thinning" article. Shaded0 (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose merge. Firstly, pruning and thinning are not used interchangeably (the lede for thinning is clear on the distinction), so I don't accept the basis of the argument. Secondly, merging thinning to Ecological thinning would be unhelpful because it doesn't cover the agricultural use, such as the thinning of fruit of the thinning of trees to maximise output as part of forestry. A move of some of the Ecological thinning section to the Ecological thinning page would be very reasonable, but not essential as the section already has an appropriate 'main' template in place. Klbrain (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Thinning]]
Talk:Tunnel magnetoresistance

message: The read-heads of modern hard disk drives work on the basis of magnetic tunnel junctions. TMR
Is this still correct that most harddrives at 2012 still use TMR, and not the GMR `a5b (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The progression went Hall probe/others -> AMR -> GMR -> TMR where each step made a big change in areal density.  TMR can be thought of as an improved GMR -- by tunneling between magnetic layers instead of conducting through a non-magnetic spacer you get a lot better sensitivity.  The article Disk read-and-write head has a decent summary.  I'll try to clarify here.  a13ean (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  TMR vs GMR 

message: This statement in the intro is not clear without some info about its relevance. Someone is trying to look smart but in a meaningless way: "Since this process is forbidden in classical physics, the tunnel magnetoresistance is a strictly quantum mechanical phenomenon." Classical physics vs. quantum mechanics -- impressive. Why should anyone care? --Jelsova (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Pseudo-intellectual Introduction
Talk:Anorthosite

message: Hi, I would like to know where the anorthosite is being mined for alumina? Anybody know this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.225.176.130 (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alumina

message: This article reads like a bunch of geology mumbo jumbo, even for a physicist. - Anders E. Andersen  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.150.153.224 (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Jargon

message: I'm not sure why the see also section has as its members ultramafic and layered mafic intrusions.  Given that anorthosite is a felsic rock, I wouldn't expect to see mafics as related terms.  I could see them as related terms to an article on felsic minerals as a whole as the opposite would be informational, but as a see also to a specific felsic mineral it seems out of place.  aremisasling (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the ultramafic to mafic layered intrusions article, anorthosites are often associated with layered intrusions, such as the Bushveld igneous complex. The article should be updated to include this type of occurrence, even if it's volumetrically insignificant compared to the Proterozoic massif-type anorthosites. Mikenorton (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I might have some info on the Duluth Complex, where this occurs. I will root around for it. Awickert (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a very quick blurb with references. Awickert (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 
Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in West Virginia

message: And some aren't? Just curious. --Ebyabe 18:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. --Ebyabe 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are some of the blue links italicized? 

message: I noticed that several of the sites I have listed on List of historic sites in Ohio County, West Virginia were removed from your page. Were these sites removed from the NRHP? Mphamilton 05:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ones? --Ebyabe 13:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Namely residences located outside of Wheeling in Triadelphia, Valley Grove, and Mount Echo. Mphamilton 02:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several Ohio County sites removed
Talk:Ewald's sphere

message: This stub and the stub on the Ewald construction seem to be about essentially the same thing. I propose that they should be mergedYadevol 13:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The figure of Ewald construction is quite confusing, at least for me as a beginner. None of my text book is drawn like that.  Schenad (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the figure right?
Talk:Lambda point

message: "Since this exponent is negative for the superfluid transition, specific heat remains finite." I agree it remains finite, but should it not even tend towards 0. The behavior C\approx A_\pm t^{-\alpha}+B_\pm seems inconsistent with a rising function near t=0. Does someone understand how this can be consistent with the lambda shape? Abenthy (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is consistent with the lambda shape because the coefficients A_\pm are negative. PhysicsAboveAll (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not consistent with lambda shape
Talk:Ecuadorian general election, 2006

message: This needs a section on the failure of E-Vote's quick-count and the resulting concerns about fraud.  Can someone who speaks Spanish (I don't) summarise the local reporting? IdiotSavant 20:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I would like to resurrect my previous idea to change the current naming convention for elections. The current convention is:
:Use the format "Demonym type election, date", for example "Canadian federal election, 1867"...  (WP:NAME#Elections}
I propose this is changed to allow two alternatives, as follows:
:Use either this form: political division type election, date, or this form: political division election of date. For example, Canadian federal election, 1867 or Canadian federal election of 1867.  Where an article has been created using one form, do not move the article to the other form.
This new option would make linking more natural and make the article names more encyclopedic.
Please comment on this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#New elections proposal
Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming convention
Talk:Curie–Weiss law

message: This is Abhijit Guria from T.I.F.R.
I will be working on Curie-Weiss Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curie-Weiss_law
________________________________________________________________________
References:
- http://www.gitam.edu/eresource/Engg_Phys/semester_2/magnetic/weiss.htm
- Kittel, Charles. Introduction to solid state physics: Chapter 10: FERROMAGNETISM AND ANTIFERROMAGNETISM
- Weiss, Pierre (1907). "L'hypothèse du champ moléculaire et la propriété ferromagnétique". J. Phys. Theor. Appl. 6 (1): 661–690.
- Feynmann Lectures (Vol 2)
- Ashcroft Mermin
- Vleck: The theory of electric and magnetic susceptibility
___________________________________________________________________________
Plan:
___________________________________________________________________________
1. Putting summary of the following concepts referred to by the existing page to make the page more self-contained:
- magnetic susceptibility - ferromagnet - paramagnetic region - Curie point - Spontaneous magnetization - Mean field approximation
2. Listing some of the classical approaches to magnetic susceptibility and pointing out their limitation using Bohr–van Leeuwen theorem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93van_Leeuwen_theorem
3. Furnishing the details of the derivation of the Curie Law using the density matrix of a 2-state system and Von Neumann's equation (as done in the class during lecture 5).
http://theory.tifr.res.in/~sgupta/courses/qm2013/hand5.pdf
4. Explanation of para and diamagnetism using perturbation theory:
Solid State physics: Ashcroft Mermin
5. Adding spin-spin interaction in the Hamiltonian: Ising model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ising_model— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ag33in (talk • contribs) 10:44, 16 October 2014‎
:Welcome, Abhijit Guria. I look forward to your carrying out this plan. You will find Wiki-style links useful. For example, to link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93van_Leeuwen_theorem, you can put double brackets around the article name –  Bohr–van Leeuwen theorem – to get Bohr–van Leeuwen theorem. See Manual of Style/Linking for more information. Each of the subjects
:: magnetic susceptibility - ferromagnet - paramagnetism - Curie point - Spontaneous magnetization - Mean field approximation
:has its own article, so your summaries can be short and to the point. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

message: ... and then 
{\displaystyle \chi ={\frac {M\mu _{0}}{B}}\rightarrow {\frac {M\mu _{0}}{B+\lambda M}}={\frac {C}{T}}}{\displaystyle \chi ={\frac {M\mu _{0}}{B}}\rightarrow {\frac {M\mu _{0}}{B+\lambda M}}={\frac {C}{T}}}
which can be rearranged to get 
{\displaystyle \chi ={\frac {C}{T-{\frac {C\lambda }{\mu _{0}}}}}}{\displaystyle \chi ={\frac {C}{T-{\frac {C\lambda }{\mu _{0}}}}}}
Is this a joke? 2001:B07:646B:4D36:FDE4:1A7B:6912:9FA0 (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: What?
Talk:Samarium–cobalt magnet

message: The coercivity section here is really generic for magnetic materials, and in some respects is actively wrong. Domain wall pinning is extremely important in Samarium Cobalt 1:5 series, as are the Non-Matrix crystalline phases. someone needs to rewrite.
23.31.82.9 (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coercivity =

message: People working in magnetism are a little bit old fashioned (like in astronomy), but even magnetism should finally arrive in the times of SI: the unit for magnetic field is A/m and the unit for flux is T such that the energy (density) product is VAs/m^3=J/m^3 Mikuszefski  (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units 

message: Is SmCo5 radioactive? I know that cobalt is radioactive, but does it stay that way when combined with samarium?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.104.203 (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Cobalt-59 is stable.  If you use a radioactive isotope, all alloys and compounds will be radioactive.—Dah31 (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radioactive? 

message: I have been trying to grind SmCo5. Its impossible.  Although it looks metal it is like cement. If u try drill a hole or enlarge a hole it gnarves and breaks apart. Mechanic weardown within minutes. 
It cannot be that difficult to produce a usable alloy of 2 completely  3valued  elements mixture 1/6Sm 5/6 Co  to  Unitcrystal or aligned directed polycrystal  material by thermal gradients. 
#dont buy that unless u melt it yourself. 
   Wikistallion (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This material is manipulated
Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Oklahoma

message: I have updated this list from using the weekly updates from July 1 2005 through April 27, 2007. As of April 30, 2007 this list and the Oklahoma COunty list should be complete. Dsmdgold 15:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates

message: I've started replacing county lists by NRIS-based tables, with careful attention to capturing valid information reflected in old lists in place.  I'll try to note ay research issues or editing needed items here.doncram (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version of the NRIS database available for download (which also includes sites that have been removed as well as those nominated but never listed) does not include a site by this name. --sanfranman59 (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The latest NRIS database available for download shows Black Beaver's Grave as having been removed from the Register in 1999. --sanfranman59 (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed this listing from the Caddo County table. It is not included in the Caddo County table produced by the Elkman tool. I also checked the latest NRIS database available for download and it's only listed in Canadian County there also. --sanfranman59 (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An error then — the description says that it extends from Hydro to the US 281 spur.  Hydro is not in Canadian County, so it can't be only in Canadian.  Nyttend (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table-izing and research issues 

message: *In Wapanucka vicinity, Old Faucett Well appeared in the old list.  It is not in NRIS-based table.  Was this delisted, or never NRHP-listed, or what?  There are other delisted items in the same county, now noted in a separate table. doncram (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version of the NRIS database available for download (which also includes sites that have been removed as well as those nominated but never listed) does not include a site by this name. --sanfranman59 (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Atoka county research issues

message: ;research issues in Caddo County:
*Anadarko and vicinity
**Black Beaver's Grave is not in NRIS-based list, unless it is covered by another name (perhaps an archeological site one?) 
:::The latest NRIS database available for download shows Black Beaver's Grave as having been removed from the Register in 1999. --sanfranman59 (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed this listing from the Caddo County table. It is not included in the Caddo County table produced by the Elkman tool. I also checked the latest NRIS database available for download and it's only listed in Canadian County there also. --sanfranman59 (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An error then — the description says that it extends from Hydro to the US 281 spur.  Hydro is not in Canadian County, so it can't be only in Canadian.  Nyttend (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Caddo county research issues
Talk:Heterojunction bipolar transistor

message: The term "Kroemer factor" has been removed because this factor is completely unknown. A search on the web will only return hits that link back to this page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eowynne (talk • contribs) 11:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Reinstated, with ref. Pol098 (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kroemer factor 

message: In the Fabrication section it says:
"Due to the need to manufacture HBT devices with extremely thin base layers, molecular beam epitaxy is principally employed."
This is true up to a point. Other techniques are used depending on the material system. Notably IBM et al. use a proprietary UHV CVD system for SiGe. Other techniques used include MOVPE for quaternary systems.
I didn't want to change the entry for feat of treading on someone's toes.
Roy
Royzee (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  epitaxy
Talk:Eurasia (skyscraper)

message: This article is missing a huge key element: location. Where the heck is this place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.33.16 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Now it's got the new name — Eurasia, you can see it on the russian wiki (and on german too). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by V-VA (talk • contribs) 13:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the new name 

message: According to the infobox, Top floor is at 292.5 m (960 ft) and Observatory at 306.9 m (1,007 ft).
How is that possible? The observatory has no floor? If it has floor, should not that be the "top floor" also then? 109.240.219.111 (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  observatory height?
Talk:Ednyfed Fychan

message: Given Ednyfed Fychan was the paternal apical ancestor of the entire Tudor Dynasty of England, Wales, Ireland & even France, that there is no mention made here of his apparent apical ancestors, South Welsh Prince Rhys ap Tewdwr thus King of the Britons Howell the Good who codified Welsh Law & WikiProject Wales|class=start|importance=low!? WHY!?  Matthew (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Because....: "The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of Wales."  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance
Talk:Valuation using multiples

message: The math is at least unclear and/or approximative, at most wrong. Can someone change it into a latex formula? Can all values be defined? Lachambre 13:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Math

message: The last equity valuation in the article looks flawed to me:
"Calculate the current value of the future company value by multiplying the future business value with the discount factor. This is known as the time value of money.
Example:
VirusControl multiplies their future company value with the discount factor:
45.800.000 * (1-0.2) = 36,640,000 The company or equity value of VirusControl : € 36,640,000 million"
The discount factor in the immediate prior paragraph was .116, which would have resulted in a value closer to 5.3M.  Perhaps these paragraphs are not related but they would make more sense if they were.
69.12.177.26 02:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equity valuation - last one in article 

message: All the critism aside, this article is a gem; very insightful to how actually valuation is currently done. DvK (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice 

message: Why is the link to the UBS paper directing to Scribd? Downloading the paper there requires an account. This is surely not in line with Wikipedia's link policy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA16:1102:C400:E898:FDB3:4788:6518 (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Download UBS paper 

message: This page lacks citations. Here are some basic readings that may be useful:
Fernández, F. L., Fernández, P., Fernandez, P., & López, P. F. (2002). Valuation methods and shareholder value creation. Academic Press.
Fernández, P. (2007). Company valuation methods. The most common errors in valuations. IESE Business School, 449, 1-27.
Fernandez, P. (2007). Valuing companies by cash flow discounting: ten methods and nine theories. Managerial Finance.
Fernandez, P. (2001). Valuation using multiples. How do analysts reach their conclusions. IESE Business School, 1, 1-13.
Koller, T., Goedhart, M., & Wessels, D. (2010). Valuation: measuring and managing the value of companies (Vol. 499). john Wiley and sons.
Koller, T. (1994). What is value-based management?. McKinsey quarterly, 87-87.
Koller, T., Goedhart, M., & Wessels, D. (2005). The right role for multiples in valuation. McKinsey on Finance, (15), 7-11.
Matschke, M. J., Brösel, G., & Matschke, X. (2010). Fundamentals of functional business valuation. Journal of Business Valuation and Economic Loss Analysis, 5(1).
Liu, J., Nissim, D., & Thomas, J. (2002). Equity valuation using multiples. Journal of Accounting Research, 40(1), 135-172.
Reilly, R. F., & Schweihs, R. P. (2004). The handbook of business valuation and intellectual property analysis. McGraw Hill.
Schreiner, A. (2009). Equity valuation using multiples: an empirical investigation. Springer Science & Business Media.
Topjur01 (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some literature
Talk:Cirque de Celebrité

message: I like the table someone created. However what i'd like to do is to flip it on it's side so that the list of celebrities goes down the left and then the episodes go across the top, keeping the same colour scheme. I think this would make it tidier and more natural. Does anyone else have an opinion? Timb0h 20:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elimination table 

message: Should the article really be describing these people as "celebrities" without qualifying that in some way? I don't think any of them are household names, and one or two of them are notable only for having been contestants on other reality shows, so it's pretty cheeky of Sky to call them celebrities. (Mind you, the same could be said of just about any recent programme with "celebrity" in the title.) 217.34.39.123 13:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sky calls them "celebrities", but are they? 

message: What have they got to do with the actual television programme Cirque de Celebrite?--Fay06 16:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Links 

message: Somebody changed the table to say final 2 on one line and final 3 on the other, there was about 30 seconds of time on the show from there being a final 3 to there being a final 2 to the winner being announced so you don't need 2 separate lines on the table. Fay06 02:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final 2/3 
Talk:Nernst effect

message: The article could still use a list of some typical Nernst coefficients for frequently-encountered materials, but I will now get back to work. Y!qtr9f 10:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

message: The inverse of the first Nernst–Ettingshausen effect ist indeed the Ettingshausen effect, but the Ettingshausen effect is not a synonyme for the second Nernst–Ettingshausen effect. The latter one is similar to the first Nernst–Ettingshausen, but the temparatur gradient is parallel to the electrical field.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:2C7E:9A00:743E:E2E7:301F:5D77 (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ettingshausen effect is not a synonyme for the second Nernst–Ettingshausen effect
Talk:Fowler–Nordheim equation

message: The explanation of the equation is written in a rather condescending tone. It needs to be rewritten. DFH (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it sounds pedantic. But better than no explanation at all. I agree a rephrasing would be nice. :-) --Steve (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condescending tone? 

message: Re: the suggestion about merging this page with the one on field (electron) emission - Yes I agree - What's needed is a rewrite and update of the field emission page.  Fowler-Nordheim-type equations are the approximate equations that apply to field emission from bulk metals.  What's needed is a better field emission page and a link to it from the words: "Fowler-Nordheim". (RGForbes (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Field Emission Page