lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Norman Wilson (The Wire)

message: I know it seems like Wilson's position is chief of staff, but a scene in Episode 49 makes me think that is not his official title. Specifically, the head councilwoman refers to Carcetti's "pretty new chief of staff" and gestures towards the un-named white guy at the table, who then laughs. Based on this I feel he must be the chief of staff and Wilson has some other title. Until I can find conclusive proof either way I am removing it.—Nate Scheffey 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chief of staff?

message: I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters#Redirecting articles on %5Bmostly%5D minor The Wire characters about either redirecting this article to List of The Wire characters or turning it into a stub. If anyone is following this article I hope you can weigh in there. 61.18.156.43 (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to redirect this article to [[List of The Wire characters]]
Talk:Axino

message: * Role of the axino in R-parity violation models.
* Possible decay routes for the axino.
* Discussion as to the mechanisms by which axinos may have been generated by cosmological thermal expansion.
** Detail as to the role of axinos as a candidate for both hot and cold dark matter.
Some of this I'll try to get time to add, but I'd really love an editor who knows the material better to lend a hand.  I'll be honest, some of this math is over my head. :-)
--Serpent's Choice 11:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topics to add
Talk:Magnox Reprocessing Plant

message: Tons? (Long Tons, Short Tons, Metric Tons) or perhaps this was supposed to be tonnes?—Sladen (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantities  

message: I'm a little confused about the solvent/aqueous phases.  I think the second paragraph under "Process" needs a tweak as it has both streams in the aqueous phase.  There is similar confusion on the "Purex" Wikipedia page, where there seems to be a disparity between the diagram and the text.  Maybe an expert can help? Shipleyhamster (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phase confusion
Talk:Ball bearing motor

message: This work has the largest bibliography among the ones I know and was updated in 2020. This IMHO compensates for its non-peer-reviewd status. Just in case, I placed in under External links. Викидим (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  McDonald
Talk:The Audition (band)

message: the correct name for this band is "theAUDITION" Nick.dilallo@gmail.com 21:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: If danny has been singer since 2004, who was singer before then. For they formed in 2003.
loveyourfaithLoveyourfaith (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  first singer 

message: just saw them in london. they were weak, then the singer had a paddy and stormed off. ah man it was so funny!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.101.110 (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  gig 
Talk:Plasma beta

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Beta (plasma physics) →  – From my experience, some authors refer to β as the plasma β, so changing the title to "Plasma beta" would satisfy (from my experience) recognizability in WP:CRITERIA as well as improve the title's naturalness and WP:CONCISEness. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 19 May 2022
Talk:List of mosses of Great Britain and Ireland

message: Prod notice removed - there are lists for many other British taxonomic groups, so there should also be one for this group. SP-KP 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

message: Rather than cause upset by unilaterally renaming this article without discussion, I'll just question why it needs 'the' in its title. 
To me, 'List of mosses of Britain and Ireland', or 'List of moss species of Britain and Ireland' or even 'List of species of moss in Britain and Ireland' all seem more logical, and all more likely to be searched for by a user. Any thoughts? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 'List of PLANT TYPEs of REGION' seems to be the most common way to title lists like this across Wikipedia (see other plant lists here). But this title is consistent with List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland and its 8 sublists. I'd support moving this and the 9 vascular plant lists to eliminate the first "the"; the new titles would be more concise and more consistent with similar lists. Plantdrew (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good to hear. The 'the' is quite acceptable in a published book or checklist, but certainly doesn't seem compatible with Wikipedia's naming style. I'll put the moving on my 'to do' list, but will await any further observations. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illogical article title 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - I agree it makes sense. Elfguy (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 June 2023
Talk:Ninth Letter

message: Should discussion of issues be in reverse chronological order so most recent first? RJFJR 22:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout

message: Some of the language in the wikipedia page seems to come directly from the Ninth Letter website -- e.g., "two distinct but related incarnations".  Are we obligated to rephrase?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.58.203 (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Auto) Plagiarism? 
Talk:Reformation Post TLC

message: A piece of trivia about this album: I believe the acronym TLC in the title stands for "Three Lazy Cunts", referring to the three band members who left.--HisSpaceResearch 12:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Album title

message: Not sure what the official release date is, but while this article currently has 12th February, according to amazon.co.uk it's 5th March in the UK, and 27th March in the US. I pre-ordered mine from a well-known web retailer and received it last week, so someone's got the date wrong.--Michig 19:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sanctuary Records say the official release date is the 12th. CD-Wow accidently sent CDs out for the 5th (hence some people have copies early). The release date of the vinyl is 5th March, this how where Amazon have cocked up the release date, at a guess. SaltyWater 22:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Release date

message: US customers are reporting that "The Usher" has been removed from the Narnack Records edition as well as featuring slightly different versions of a few tracks. Until we get news that this is a manufacturing snafu or some such, this should be considered an accurate statement of the US tracklisting. Ac@osr 09:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: US edition
Talk:Indeterminacy debate in legal theory

message: I added back this line, which 66.108.189.36 edited out, "Professors can’t award points for the conclusion because they themselves don’t know what the conclusion will be – no one knows how a judge will rule until the judge actually rules."
Isn't it obvious that if the professors knew how judges would rule on a legal question, then they could not award points to students who predict the alternate ruling, or who wrote "Maybe this, or maybe that?" 
I agree with 66.108.189.36's other edit, and also recommend 66.108.189.36 register for an account so as to hide his IP (just safer that way.)
--Lexisnexis1 22:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Professors not knowing how a judge will rule

message: The section beginning "Today there is ubiquitous evidence that the law is largely unpredictable" is highly tendentious, and some of its claims are ridiculous.  (For example, the claim that 5-4 Supreme Court decisions show that law is "largely unpredictable" is risible since the Court actively picks the hardest cases where the law is least settled out of the thousands submitted for its consideration.)  I'm inclined to remove it entirely, but another option would be to present the best evidence on both sides (as reported by reputable sources, of course).  Thoughts?
Christopher M (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: I have found myself dissatisfied with the academese used to discuss this topic in literature on it. I have attempted to break down the issue for ease of interpretability. Also, I am not too interested on anyone's views on what Wikipedia rules should be applied in enhancing the communicability of this topic. I think it's an important legal topic that does not get enough recognition nor critical analysis. Dennis Blewett (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  My take on this page so far
Talk:Bogoliubov transformation

message: This article has been labeled as lacking sources. Aren't references the article cites sufficient sources? --bonzi (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a reference for this point please go ahead and change it, citing the reference! Grj23 (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The nature of the transformation depends on the objects it is acting on. This leads to the above mis-understanding. The transformation is symplectic when applied to the classical position and momentum coordinates (the name canonical transformation from classical mechanics is equivalent). The transformation could be called canonical when applied to the quantized position and momentum operators, or to the creation and annihilation operators, as exemplified in this wiki -- the name conveys that the transformed operators still obey the same canonical commutation relations. And finally, if the transformation is made to act on the states that these operators act on, it is represented, indeed, by a unitary operator. Since symplectic transformations do not form a compact group (they can be parametrized by parameters taken from the entire set of real numbers), the state space they act on as unitaries must be infinite-dimensional. This is a standard theorem of group theory. DieHenkels (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

message: I feel this article fails to make clear why or how Bogoliubov transformations are used.  Is it possible that a simple example could be given? Grj23 (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity 

message: I can't find a reference for Bogoliubov paper to superfluidity 1947, it seems it has the same name as Landau's (1949) and it precedes it. If some work about it was made it must be after BCS. MaoGo (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogoliubov superfluidity 

message: The article needs a simplified explanation to introduce it to non-experts. It needs to be explained (at an overview level) just what the transformation is. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs introduction for non-experts 

message: Unfortunately, "chiral fermion" redirects to spinor, where there is no mention of chirality anywhere. The more nearly correct redirect would be to chirality.  Anybody know how to change such redirects?MidwestGeek (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added "chiral fermion" to section [[Bogoliubov_transformation#Fermionic_mode|Fermionic mode]]
Talk:Best of KMD

message: There is no reason why this page should be deleted. The reason it was deleted previously was due its poor quality.
This article conforms to the standard of what is expected from an album article. Powelldinho 22:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 
Talk:Boltzmann relation

message: since throughout all the bits and pieces need explanation and citations:
*Historical background? Doesn't even say when it was derived/published...
*"In a plasma, the Boltzmann relation describes the number density of an isothermal charged particle fluid when the thermal and the electrostatic forces acting on the fluid have reached equilibrium." ,<-- Just mechanical equilibrium? What about thermal equilibrium?
*"using the momentum fluid equation of the two-fluid model of plasma physics in absence of a magnetic field." <-- A link to the actual equation would be nice, or even state the equation, 
*"When the electrons reach dynamic equilibrium, the inertial and the collisional terms of the momentum equations are zero," <-- What does this mean? What terms? Why and how zero?
*"Discrepancies with the Boltzmann relation can occur, for example, when oscillations occur so fast that the electrons cannot find a new equilibrium (see e.g. plasma oscillations) or when the electrons are prevented from moving by a magnetic field (see e.g. lower hybrid oscillations)." <--  What other oscillations apart from plasma oscillations? How do the discrepancies arise? 
Maschen (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaned it up... and tagged

message: Some people might find it confusing that e denotes the Euler constant and electric charge. I suggest replacing the formula with exp. 194.94.214.75 (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boltzman relation equation
Category talk:Cannabis

message: I propose reorganization of Cannabis-related articles roughly as follows:
*Cannabis -- top-level summary  
** Cannabis sativa -- botany 
*** list of notable cultivars (both drug and non-drug types) (currently category:Cannabis strains)
** Legal issues of cannabis (legal issues of drug cannabis have affected and continue to affect non-drug uses of cannabis)
*** Legal history and current legal status
**** various country-specific articles
*** Cannabis legal reform (current category)
**** various country-specific articles 
**** activism 
***** individuals
***** organizations
***** political parties
** Hemp -- (non-drug) uses
*** fiber uses
**** Canvas
**** Cannabrick construction
*** non-fiber uses
**** Hemp oil
**** Cannabis flower essential oil
**** food (excluding foods prepared for oral delivery of cannabinoids)
** Cannabis (drug) -- drug uses
*** Cannabinoids 
**** various detailed articles (current category:Cannabinoids)
*** Pharmacology
**** Health issues and the effects of cannabis
**** Medical and health research (currently category:Cannabis research)
*** History and prevalence of use
**** Spiritual use of cannabis
**** Medical cannabis
**** Recreational
*** Preparations and methods of use
**** Preparations
***** non-pharmaceutical preparations
****** Charas
****** Bhang
****** Hashish
******* Bubble hash (merge to Hashish)
******* Keif (possibly merge to hashish)
******* Hash oil (possibly merge to hashish)
******** Butane hash oil (merge to hash oil)
***** Pharmaceutical preparations and analogs 
****** Tilden's Extract
****** Sativex
****** Marinol
**** Methods of use (routes of administration)
***** Cannabis smoking (current category:Cannabis smoking)
****** various smoking methods
***** Routes of administration other than smoking 
****** various cannabis food articles (current category: Cannabis foods) 
*** Cannabis (drug) cultivation
*** Cannabis culture
**** various culture-related articles
--Chondrite 22:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks great, except you missed vaporization which is not exactly smoking and should be included as third in the section "Methods of use"
Antip8ri8 19:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-organization proposal
Talk:Bosonization

message: The article's main equation makes little sense, since it says two things are equal to the same thing that are obviously not equal to each other.
Also, the equation seem to say that an algebraic operator gets inverted by a differential operator.
Surely this requires some explanation. 178.38.132.48 (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little sense 

message: Condensed Matter Field Theory, Alexander Altland and Ben Simons
Has several examples of bosonization of electron lattice models. 178.38.132.48 (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: We should use the following doi for the reference to Lieb's and Mattis' paper "Exact Solution of a Many‐Fermion System and Its Associated Boson Field," since it takes you directly to the article itself and not a chapter in a book one needs to purchase. Many interested readers are more likely to have access to the article on AIP's site. 
 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1704281
I will wait for a bit to make the change, if anyone has thoughts to share.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by I want a bear as a pet (talk • contribs) 17:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOI for "Exact Solution of a Many‐Fermion System and Its Associated Boson Field" Should be Updated 

message: Which specific equation are you referring to?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by I want a bear as a pet (talk • contribs) 17:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to 'little sense'
Talk:Brush discharge

message: "...is characterized by nonsparking, faintly luciferous furcations composed of ionized particles."
Use more sensible language. 'Glowing, fork-like discharges' works fine, put down the thesaurus before someone gets hurt.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.110.250 (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the hell does this mean? 
Talk:Ambilight

message: I have a Philips tv with Ambilight.  It's a 3-sided version.--71.35.69.46 22:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shameless Plug

message: I don't find this article to be an advertisement. It provides basic, though useful information for consumers who want to know more about Ambilight. Note that if it speaks about the positives/benefits of the technology, it says "the company claims" or "Philips claims" which is fair enough.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.119.115.225 (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: No real advertisement
Talk:C parity

message: The result on the c-parity eigenvalue for a pair of bounded bosons holds only for the pion case, because it has spin zero. See for example "Introduction to elementary particle physics" by Alessandro Bettini, Cambridge Press, pag. 89. Luigi Pertoldi (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Boson bound state
Talk:Capacitively coupled plasma

message: Article says that because the ions are heavier (than electrons), they acquire less energy.  I don't think this is correct... considering just singly ionized atoms, they should have the same charge as the electrons, so the electric field gives each the same energy.  Rather, they acquire (or have) less velocity because KE = 1/2mv^2.  A more massive particle will have a smaller velocity change for the same added energy.
I'm going to go ahead and change this, and add a little about accelerating ions, but wanted to explain my reasoning.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lone Skeptic (talk • contribs) 12:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy or Velocity?
Talk:Carbon-burning process

message: It says:
:Carbon burning starts when helium burning ends...
No. In principle, there can be overlaps, see Supernova. The onion burning progenitors burn carbon and helium simultaneously. Said: Rursus (☻) 11:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong

message: I re-wrote the section to remove an erroneous (for masses below 10 solar) reference to red supergiant stars and instead mention Asymptotic Giant Branch stars. I used the Ostlie reference to expand the discussion of carbon fusion and explain the basic variations depending on the
mass of the star. Hope this is enough to reduce the warnings on the page.Puzl bustr (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good! Although the concept red giant is vague and does include AGB stars, supergiants seems fairly irrelevant. Warnings not needed any more. BTW I found an ADSABS entry for that Donald Clayton book, that I included in the ref. In this case it doesn't matter much, but in ADSABS one may find very interesting reading when articles are freely available. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 18:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are worried about distinguishing red giants and AGB stars from things like the sun, I suggest the term "non-main-sequence stars" or something similar.  Of course this has it's own problems, like including white dwarfs, but if the noun is non-main-sequence stars with (eg: red giants, AGB stars ...) then I think it's more clear.  As a side note, articles on ADS are generally not free and are linked to the respective journals.  It's only "free" if your institution is paying, or if it's on arXiv.org  DAID (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added references and cleaned up the discussion 

message: I added these references as open-access ones. Also added a section on neutrino losses with the Clayton ref.Puzl bustr (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Google books references for the Reaction Products section
Talk:Causal perturbation theory

message: It would be good for this article to clarify exactly how much of QFT is put on a rigorous mathematical footing by this theory. There is still no completely rigorous definition of an interacting QFT in 3+1 dimensions, so this theory can't make everything rigorous. What exactly does it accomplish? -- Spireguy (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Connected Limited Device Configuration

message: How does CLDC relate to the KVM? Mathiastck 22:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The KVM is a virtual machine (software) that is implementing the CLDC (profile/specification/api). Of course there are (or can be) others too. — 88.77.181.106 (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  KVM
Talk:Chaos: Making a New Science

message: I know there's a bit of controversy in regards to Trivia Sections, so I'm just noting this here instead of adding it explicitly.
Chaos: Making a New Science makes an appearance in the film Chaos (2006 film), including references to the author himself. See this review for a reference to the usage of James Gleick in the film.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smerity (talk • contribs) 03:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Section 

message: The bottom link "nonlinear maintenance" appears to have no relevance to the article and should be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.80.53 (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant Link 
Talk:Charge carrier

message: The article says: In metals, the charge carriers are electrons which ignores the possibility of hole bands in metals.  Consider that most power lines are aluminum, and that aluminum has conduction in both electron and hole bands, a large fraction of our power is conducted by holes.  Gah4 (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metals 

message: FETs are named for p-channel or n-channel.  In depletion mode devices, that will match the type of the semiconductor.  In enhancement mode, it is an inversion layer, and so effectively the opposite type of the channel region, but they are still majority carriers.  Gah4 (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  FETs 

message: It seems that there is supposed to be a merge discussion, but I don't see one. Maybe I need to start it. Gah4 (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge