lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:St Peter's Cathedral, Adelaide

message: I'm confused about the location of the Bishop's promised acre on Victoria Square. Referring to the map and list of city acre lots selected to 23 March 1837 or sold by auction on 27/28 March 1837, the lot numbers (somewhat indistinct) around the Square, clockwise from the King William Street / Flinders Street corner, are 236, 270, 303, 338, 375, 409, 408, 378, 335, 306, 267, 237. (The numbering scheme is alternately east to west and west to east.) Referring to the allocation list, all were sold to private buyers except 408 and 409 at the Gouger and Angas Street corners of King William Street, which were reserved for the Supreme and Local Courts and Police court respectively, and 236 and 237, at Flinders and Franklin Street corners, reserved for Government offices and the GPO/Telegraph offices. Was one of these re-allocated to Short ten years later, or was one of the eight acres of the Square itself to be excised? Doug butler (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The promised acre was within Victoria Square itself, hence why it was declared an illegal grant (as the square was a public reserve). --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bishop Short's acre on Victoria Square
Talk:National Spherical Torus Experiment

message: So, can anyone contribute an image or photograph of NSTX?  There are plenty on the NSTX web site, but I can't easily tell if they could be used under a fair use doctrine.  The work is funded by the U.S. Government, but is not performed by federal employees.  Thus, I don't think the "work of the Federal Government" fair use applies.  Anyway, I'll just make this plea for an image of some type of the system.  --SeanAhern (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture?
Talk:University of Vermont

message: Is this form of referencing permissible here? All of the sources are self-published by UVM. Don't we need secondary sources? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine. (And nearly any secondary source is going to just be repeating what the university itself has reported anyway.) ElKevbo (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fall First-Year Statistics all from primary sources 

message: Greetings, the biography article for M. Ahmad Chaudhry has only one reference (a dead link). From the article: an American radiologist, Associate Professor at the University of Vermont, and Interim Associate Dean for Research, in the College of Nursing and Health Sciences. Asking for help here to improve the article & possibly de-orphan by adding to List of University of Vermont people. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: - Thanks User:Unbandito - Cheers! JoeNMLC (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  M. Ahmad Chaudhry - University of Vermont people
Talk:Naturalness (physics)

message: I find everything related to the gauge hierarchy problem and supersymmetry of much too high level for wikipedia. It completely misses links to other pages (there isn't even one to the susy or standard model pages). It uses a lot of jargon that would be introduced in an advanced particle-physics lecture. I think it should be shortened by an expert. Pkoppenb (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert needed 

message: I must admit that I never understood what naturalness is in high-energy physics until I read Polchinksi's explanation here https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9210046 which connects naturalness to the renormalization group.
Let me try to paraphrase his line of thought:
He connects the naturalness problem to superrenormalizable (aka relevant) couplings in the Lagrangian.
If we have a physical theory defined by a Lagrangian at some high-energy cutoff \Lambda, we can obtain an effective theory for some low-energy cutoff \lambda by following the renormalization group flow which gives us the values of the couplings at the low-energy cut-off. But if some term in the Lagrangian is super-renormalizable (i.e., relevant), this means that the term will grow as we move to lower and lower energies. If we follow the renormalization group flow from the high-energy cut-off \Lambda to \lambda \ll \Lambda, the coefficient in the Lagrangian will grow by some power of \Lambda / \lambda. This means that the super-renormalizable coupling will dominate all other terms that are present in the high-energy Lagrangian. Consequently, the low-energy physics will be very different from the high-energy physics unless we fine-tune the coupling in the high-energy theory to give us a sufficiently small effective coupling at low energies.
I am aware that the above description is still far too technical for Wikipedia, but it would at least allow us to make a connection with the renormalization group article. My suggestion would be to add a section "Connection to the renormalization group" with content along the lines outlined above, potentially simplified.
However, my background is in condensed matter physics and not in high-energy physics, so I am not sure whether this misses a relevant aspect of naturalness. Could someone with an appropriate background in high-energy physics comment? If you have other thoughts on this suggestion, I would be happy to hear them as well.
Jascha Tempeler (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to add a section connecting naturalness to the renormalization group
Talk:Nature Physics

message: I removed redudant material. Crusio, maybe something like this is what you are requesting. It is an original creation by the way :>). ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope

message: Anonymous IP user: 81.151.92.171 previously copied and pasted (word for word) the introduction for this article  from the Nature Physics web site here. I then restored the article to its previous version here. The anonymous IP user then restored the copyrighted material . 
Rather than get into an edit war with an anonymous IP user I placed the copy vio tag on the article, so an administrator can deal with this. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy right infringement

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.nature.com/nphys/authors/index.html#aims-scope. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Neutral-beam injection

message: This article does not quite meet Wikipedia's quality standards, as the first sentence is not in the typical Wikipedia style. There's also some general work to be done on this page. Feel free to pitch in. wia (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: … 71.188.61.115 (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of NSTX or NSTX-U?
Talk:Neutron backscattering

message: @Kkmurray: You added a todo-tag concerning external links. I guess you refer to the links to the official web sites of the individual backscattering instruments. What's wrong with these links? Is there some substantial problem? Or are you primarily concerned about compliance with WP's rules? In this case: which particular rule do you refer to?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.187.179.45 (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Atlant

message: With ais523's edit counter. --ais523 12:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Random diffs from last 2000 edits

message: Username	Atlant
Total edits	18375
Distinct pages edited	5713
Average edits/page	3.216
First edit	18:45, 26 October 2004
	
(main)	13406
Talk	2884
User	92
User talk	1448
Image	24
Image talk	2
Template	72
Template talk	14
Category	4
Category talk	7
Wikipedia	404
Wikipedia talk	16
Portal	1
Portal talk	1
Editcountitis stats generated using Interiot's Tool. Nishkid64 23:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interiot's Tool Stats 

message: I suggest we now apply WP:SNOW as its obvious Atlant is elected! 8-)--Light current 22:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation snowball?
Talk:Meguro

message: I demoted this article's assessment from B to Start Class, because (1) no source is given and (2) the content largely depends on listing. Fukuoka, Fukuoka is another B-class article, but is far better written in detailedness and readability. --Occhanikov (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Demoted to "Start Class"
Talk:Newton disc

message: The article rises doubts that Isaac Newton would have used the disk himself. So who invented the Newton disc ?
gallica.fr makes it easy to find the first occurrence of an expression in their very large collection. « Disque de Newton » appears first in a catalogue of devices to teach physics, chemistry and math in 1852 (3 years before Maxwell published about combining primary colours on a spinning disk). Is there any English occurrence before that ? I found no mention of a Newton disc in the Oxford English Dictionnary. PolBr (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who invented the Newton disc ?
Talk:Algorhythm (album)

message: I think that this page should be found on the page for "algorithm" as a disambiguation link, and that the term "algorhythm", even though it is technically a misspelling of the word "algorithm", should point to the mathematical term first and the band's album second.  Discussion?  KDS4444Talk 01:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model

message: The title of this article should be changed to the full name, Next-To-Minimal Supersymmetry Standard Model.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.28.82 (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and moved it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Name
Talk:Node (physics)

message: :"There are two types of wave propagation: longitudinal and transverse. An example of the former is the guitar string, which creates sound waves."
This strikes me as incorrect; I thought the vibration of a guitar string is a transverse wave (the resultant sound waves are longitudinal, though).  Powers T 19:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. The way the wave is propogated is by a transverse vibration. The wave itself is longitudinal. I'll fix it. 72.1.206.174 16:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy? 

message: This article needs some major cleanup. It doesn't explain the idea of nodes/antinodes well, nor how they are formed. It does not talk about how the nodes relate to the natural frequency of an object, nor interference patterns. There should also be information pertaining to the superposition principle, and the resonant lengths. I could go on and on. Work on this article please!! 72.1.206.174 16:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requires Good Amount Of Cleaning Up 

message: :"In transmission lines a voltage node is a current antinode, and a voltage antinode is a current node."
Wouldn't this depend upon the complex impedance of the line?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgamari (talk • contribs) 06:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another inaccuracy?
Talk:Earless seal

message: Removed "this method of locomotion is called galumphing" from description of movement.  Found no source other than this page that uses that term to describe movement of seals, most dictionaries that contain a definition of the term cite Lewis Carroll's poem Jabberwocky as the origin. Femto113 07:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is FAUX-sih-day. I could also expect FAUX-sih-dee. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or FOKKy-dee. Maias (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  (argh) ...after a lot more Googlage, I've finally turned up one formal reference at http://www.answers.com/topic/phocidae-vertebrate-zoology that cites "(′fō·sə′dē)", whatever that works out to in standard IPA notation. For that matter, I also found a general page at http://www.saltspring.com/capewest/pron.htm#References which attempts to lay out guidelines for pronouncing Greek/Latin-derived terms as currently used in biology; it seems worthy of conversion to a Wiki article if someone has the time/energy. Wombat1138 (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it's funny, i personally find the notation wikipedia uses to be more confusing than the ways we've presented here... bah.  FAUX-suh-dee -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: *why doesn't the feeding section mention what it is they eat? --86.172.49.6 (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Feeding

message: The article gives the Latin names "Pagophilus groenlandica" and "Phoca groenlandicus" for the Harp (Greenland) Seal. "Pagophilus" is masculine and "Phoca" is feminine, hence the names should be "Pagophilus groenlandicus" and "Phoca groenlandica". --Death Bredon (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite. It's also supported by this page  were such confirmation needed. Anaxial (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin names
Talk:Noise floor

message: I didn't tag this one as being factual inaccurate, but I also believe that it has problems.  For example, the figure at the bottom right says that signals below the noise floor cannot be measured.  This is not always true, as GPS signals lie well below the noise floor but can be measued by integrating them over time.  Someone much more knowledgable than I on this topic needs to do some work on this article.  Thanks, --CapitalR 19:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GPS signals are far above the noise floor: they have noise of a few meters measuring the distance between receivers and satellites.  Averaging does help with GPS signals, but can't get past the noise floor limit.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Not to mention that the picture in this article actually contradicts the claim that signals below the noise floor can be measured... Vedant (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy
Talk:Nonsymmetric gravitational theory

message: The simple reason is that a theory with symmetric metric tensor does not explain the dynamical friction of photons which in Riemannian geometry is exactly zero. Exactly zero (photons moving without any loss of energy which contradicts the conservation of energy) is obviously a non physical fact which means that Riemannian geometry can't be used as an exact theory of gravitation (though it can approximately describe Newtonian gravitation, as it does). 
It turns out that the dynamical friction of photons can be exactly described by equation H_0=c/R_E, where H_0 is Hubble constant, c is speed of light, R_E is the radius of curvature of space a.k.a. Einstein's radius of the universe. BTW, it is also the reason why all the attempts to explain Hubble redshift with Newtonian attractive forces through tired light effect failed. The Newtonian gravitational forces are the result of the time dilaton and not directly of the curvature of space. To make the curvature of space working in Newtonian approximation one has to apply the conservation of energy and only then the Newtonian approximation turns out to be sufficient to show the influence of the curvature of space on the redshift of photons. As we know the results are that in Einstein's universe there shows up the Hubble constant of order of 70km/s/Mpc, and so of order of Hubble constant of our universe, and with the same (apparent) "acceleration of expansion" (dH/dt=-H_0^2/2). 
Now, the dynamical friction of photons requires loss of energy during photon's travel around a closed loop, which is not possible in space with symmetric metric tensor of spacetime. That's why Einstein was forced to propose non symmetric metric tensor to separate himself from the silly idea of the Big Bang since it must have been obvious to him that with such good results as existence of right value of Hubble constant in stationary space the expansion of the universe make no sense. It also turned out that metric tensor of spacetime must be degenerate to resist diagonalization. And that's why we need a non Riemannian theory to describe gravitation. However even without it we understand gravitation sufficiently to explain all "mysterious" phenomena like "anomalous" accelertion of Pionieers. So we can turn to more interesting things than gravitation. Jim (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for the necessity of gravitational theory being a non symmetric
Talk:Waddingtons

message: The German article on Waddingtons is much longer and more detailed. Maybe someone can help to include that information here. Otto von B. (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: German Wikipedia

message: This recently created template has been proposed for deletion. Further discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_27#Template:Waddingtons -Arb. (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 4#Template:Waddingtons on relisting. Keith D (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: {{t|Waddingtons}}

message: Article box says defunct in 1994, but article text says Christmas jigsaw puzzles were initiated in 1994 and ran through 2007. When did the company go defunct, and how?
: Waddingtons was a company that was bigger than just its Toys division. The Toys division was sold to Hasbro in 1994; and I presume Hasbro kept using the name Waddingtons to produce said jigsaw puzzles. ((Hasbro still owns the brand, and even licenses it to other toy manufacturers if they want to use the Waddingtons brand for one of their poducts.))
:The parts of Waddingtons that were not bought by Hasbro (mainly printing and packaging) continued to exist as a company until February 2000, when it was bought by John Mansfield Group PLC. Otto von B. (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the company?
Talk:Odd sympathy

message: The article gives undue weight to the Georgia State experiments, implying that the cause of sympathetic vibration was only confirmed by them in 2002.   In actuality the phenomenon of synchronization of pendulums coupled through their mountings was analysed thoroughly by 19th century scientists.  Clockmakers of the time knew not to mount pendulum clocks on the same wall.  The errors caused in gravimeter pendulums by the microscopic swaying of their mounts were analysed in the 1880s with the Michelson interferometer.  The double pendulum gravimeter, which cancelled these errors by using two pendulums on the same suspension, swinging 180 degrees out of phase, was invented by Herve Faye around the 1880s, and was used from the turn of the century until the 1930s.  Coupled pendulums were also considered for timekeeping, and several scientists built experimental coupled pendulum clocks.  This subject has a long history, and almost none of it is included in this article. --ChetvornoTALK 23:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much emphasis on Georgia State experiment?

message: After the merge, this article redirects to pendulum where the phrase odd sympathy doesn't appear at all making it rather confusing. It should either redirect to a specific section (Pendulum#Coupled pendulums?) or to injection locking which I think is more appropriate in current state of these articles. —MwGamera (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I redirected it to Pendulum#Coupled pendulums, as I feel that is more directly relevant than Injection locking which is a much broader topic which doesn't necessarily involve two coupled harmonic oscillators. --ChetvornoTALK 21:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect target
Talk:FA Vase

message: Can someone please help sort out the slight template problem with this entry?
Thanks--Gavinio 12:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Help Needed! 

message: On here it says that the venue of the final is going to be at St Andrews, however on the FA website it says that it is to be held at Wembley. I am going to change it but if anyone knows for certain it is not at Wembley, feel free to change it back.Robbosr 22:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Venue of 2007 final

message: Images from the 2009 final at Wembley and others from the preceding rounds are available on flickr - http://www.flickr.com/search/?s=rec&z=t&l=commderiv&ss=2&w=all&q=fa+vase&m=text Nanonic (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  pics 

message: I have data on awards given in the fa vase. are the official website of the fa: http://www.thefa.com/Competitions/FACompetitions/TheFAVase/favasepages/favaseprizefund200809 please put these awards on Article thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.89.85.109 (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  prize money 

message: I dont think the latest update "and 1985 finalists Fleetwood Town will be participating in the Football League for 2012-13 season after winning the Conference, though they were reformed in 1997." isnt particular relevent and therefore be removed. (GsyFootball (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleetwood 

message: This article says "ninth and lower tiers". English football league system#Cup eligibility says Level 9 to 11.  The FA Website's 2009 FA Vase rules 5(a) says...
:Participation in the Competition shall be open to all Clubs outside the FA Premier League and Football League taking part in a Senior League or Competition sanctioned by The Association or an Affiliated Association excluding those Clubs whose entries are accepted for the Challenge Trophy Competition." 
...which suggests clubs as high as level 5 could enter the Vase if they chose not to enter the Trophy. "Senior League or Competition" is not defined as far as I can see either in the FA Vase rules or the 2017/18 FA Handbook; my guess would be Step 7 or higher in the NLS as defined in the Handbook. jnestorius(talk) 18:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eligibility
Talk:Konjaku Hyakki Shūi

message: It's a frikkin' list, nothing more. How do we fix this so that those actually looking for information can find what they are looking for and not have to go, line by line, through in-universe information that might confuse the average reader? Duende-Poetry (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006-2011, A Long Time For Errors Such As These

message: What's up with Wikipedia's grudge against Japanese folklore?  Actual folklore, that is, not all the anime crap Wiki is teeming with.  This is the second interesting Japanese folklore article I've come across which is challenged on the basis of notability.  They might as well come out and say that they think Japanese folklore is unimportant.  Shikino 12:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More