lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Series 5 Episode 4 (Spooks)

message: Styles has been referred to as US Secretary of State and Trade Secretary throughout the episode. There is no such position as the US Trade Secretary, the closest that comes to it is the US Trade Representative.
Another thing is that the episode mentioned that he is likely to become an Ambassador as a result of his growing popularity. Ambassadors are not elected therefore it does not matter what the the general public thinks for him to be appointed as one.--The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trade Secretary
Talk:Series 5 Episode 9 (Spooks)

message: :Series 5 Episode 9 "Directed by Julian Holmes"? The credits say Julian Simpson.ComaDivine 07:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd seen that. The reason I brought it up (and posted Julian Simpson's name originally) is that his is the first name to roll (as Director) at the end of Episode 9. Isn't that odd? An unusual mistake... ComaDivine 13:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Directors
Talk:National Indigenous Times

message: This article appeared to have been written by someone close to the editors. I have reduced the editorial style somewhat. The article needs independent reliable references (see WP:CITE and WP:RS). --Scott Davis Talk 12:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References needed
Talk:Parallax barrier

message: "[...] without the need for the viewer to wear glasses." -- something needs to be added to clarify this. The viewer doesn't need to wear *3d* glasses, it's not like the system allows people who normally wear vision correcting glasses to no longer wear them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.226.55 (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: As of Sep 30, 2010, the article defines "parallax barrier" in a way that is not general enough. At the moment, it says "A parallax barrier is a device to allow a liquid crystal display to show a stereoscopic image without the need for the viewer to wear 3D glasses. Placed in front of the normal LCD, ...". Actually, a parallax barrier (or raster barrier) - assuming its function is display - can be placed on any image source, such as film, LCD, a rear-projected image, etc. Also, the resulting imagery can be two-view (autostereoscopic, being a parallax stereogram), multi-view (automultiscopic, being a parallax panoramagram), or non-three-dimensional multi-view (as in Rufus Butler Seder's "Scanimation").  The historical overview I like best about this is Michael Halle's _Autostereoscopic displays and computer graphics_ (ACM SIGGRAPH 31(2) May 1997 pp 58-62).  Does someone here have the energy to edit this Wikipedia article?  It would also be useful to incorporate the distinction between parallax stereograms and parallax panoramagrams, as well as include references to F. E. Ives (1903) and H. E. Ives (1928).  (Why don't I just do it? My edits seem to be frequently reverted.) Gregg Favalora (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded the first paragraph slightly to broaden the term to include any image source. —FireFly~ 22:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone want to improve the too-restrictive definition? 

message: An MIT group created a design called "content-adaptive parallax barrier":
HR3D  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Mormon (talk • contribs) 01:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  HR3D 
Talk:Kučevo

message: Za korisnika 195.252.72.193: ako nisi primetio ovo je Vikipedija na engleskom i zato te molim da ne pišeš ovde tekst na srpskom. Ako te mrzi da prevodiš, onda piši na srpskoj Vikipediji. Ok? PANONIAN (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Shortia galacifolia

message: galacifolia would mean "milk-leaf". Any idea why this is apt?--Wetman (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I haven't even seen that it means milk-leaf.   HalfGig talk 12:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Found this...page 47-48...it's because it has galax-like leaves. This is probably worth adding to the article.   HalfGig talk 12:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  galacifolia
Talk:Penrose graphical notation

message: Please view Talk:Diagrammatic notation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freiddy (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge required 

message: The theory really has two points of view... physicists use it in the context of tensors, but there is a much simpler interpretation in terms of linear algebra. Including this point-of-view would make it easier for a non-expert to understand the topic. Triathematician (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dual Points of View 

message: P. Cvitanovic: Group theory (webbook)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.218.173 (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Reference to introduction I can't add 

message: In the section "Tensor Operations" I think the solid black bar and the solid black wavy bar are the wrong way round -- in Penrose's book "The Road to Reality" and indeed elsewhere in this article it says that (or implies that) the solid black bar denotes antisymmetrization (see, for example, the section on the Levi-Civita tensor and the section on the Covariant derivative (in the latter the square brackets are taken to denote anytisymmetrization as normal)). Anyone agree?
(Lewis Kirby, 31 August 2009)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.126.47 (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do agree. I have that book. --zzo38(✉) 19:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I've corrected it accordingly. Dependent Variable (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symmetrization and Antisymmetrization the wrong way round 

message: I was looking on the web for stuff about these graphical notations and there's a number of references to sources at
:Mathoverflow: Resources for graphical languages / Penrose notation / Feynman diagrams / birdtracks?
Looks like there is enough there for a couple more articles. Dmcq (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphical notations 

message: In the picture shown the diagram doesn't match the equation. Whoever created the diagram should fix it, or it should be removed. The diagram actually corresponds to the quantity \gamma_{\alpha\beta}^{\ \ \xi}\,\gamma_{\xi\zeta}^{\ \ \zeta}Dauto (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missmatch
Talk:Photon gas

message: There are two equations given for the internal energy of the gas that differ by a factor of 8*pi^3.
Pulu (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. The expression for N was wrong. It's fixed now. PAR (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

text: are you sure is not a SI-Gaussian units issue?--MaoGo (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

text: I corrected your last edition because it was right if you compare with the table below. Maybe we should add some source to avoid additional corrections.--MaoGo (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

text: I corrected everything to use \hbar all over. Finally, I left 'h' for historical reasons (specially because we use have Plancks law which most people know in its 'hυ' form from their introductory courses). In the table at the bottom we have the ħ formulas MaoGo (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory Internal Energy Equations 

message: Not mentioning the Bose distribution here seems perverse.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.174.4 (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bose distribution
Talk:Photothermal effect

message: I disagree with the PROD as the topic herein is not described in Photothermal spectroscopy. Oddly enough I cannot find an article on optical heating, despite it being common. I will suggest adding to this page to link to topics such as Laser heating and others, although that too does not currently have a page. Looks to me like a coverage hole. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposing PROD
Talk:Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme

message: We should probably add a couple of classification examples. The article isn't particularly useful without them! Papa November (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: Something is wrong at the external links: I cannot enter to the HTML version. Is it my personal problem, or a bug at http://publish.aps.org/PACS ? dima (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  problem with "external link" ...
Talk:Picard horn

message: There should be something on the article itself. I still cannot understand this thing. In one place it is described as identification of (x, y, z) with (x + an, y + bm, z) in the upper half plane model, but then how can it have a finite volume if volume grows infinitely with z -> 0? Grunewald and Huntebrinker failed to make it any clearer. They puzzle me with “r ≥ …” thing. Oh, man, why is it “r ≥ …”? How can it have a finite volume then? Why not “r ≤ …”? Tiling space with fundamental domain seems to earn modification of Square tiling honeycomb, but I can see no word about it, so maybe it's my mistake. Is there anywhere, finally, something understandable on topic? OCTAGRAM (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper description
Talk:Picotechnology

message: Speaking as a chemist this is absurd.  Chemists work on the scale of atoms and bonds; generally between a picometer and nanometer. The preferred unit of measurement for this work is the angstrom; 1 angstrom = 0.1 nanometers = 100 picometer.  IUPAC might state nanometer is SI but the ACS uses angstrom.  Anything measured in picometers is well within Van der Waals distance of an atom and thus governed by forces best understood and manipulated through chemistry.  That is beside the point this article is science fiction and not science fact.  This is fringe at best.  I'm going to try to work some sense into this article, I won't be offended by getting some help.--OMCV (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In a edit summary it was suggested that chemistry issues be discussed on the talk page.  Clearly they have at least been mentioned.  There is serious concern that this article doesn't meet WP:NOTE.  Not every word that comes out of Ray Kurzweil mouth becomes a term worth recording in an encyclopedia.  Please at a reference where this term has been used in an academic journal or the section about nano-scientists using the word should be pulled.  As it stands this material should be described as hypothetical scientific musings which is on the fringe of mainstream research at the best.--OMCV (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

text: So far as I can tell, picotechnology is not a term that is commonly used to refer to any branch of science (or anything else for that matter). Does anyone see a reason why this page should still exist?Dakane2 (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: neologism
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Kven/Proposed decision

message: Just want to draw attention of the arbitrators to the fact that Kven antics continue unabated. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk page comments are good. Evidence is better. Might consider putting this information in the form of evidence if you have not done so already.  --FloNight 14:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidence section has plenty of the same stuff already. I will copy this there as well now. --Drieakko 14:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

message: Title says it all, I think. How can the probation be effectively enforced if no one but the arbitrators know who he is, and how will other editors know which Kven-user-like edits to revert and which to keep (per enforcement #1)? Thatcher131 19:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can this be enforced if his new user name is secret?
Talk:The Burning Bridge

message: It took me two and a half hours to get that article to a decent size, but I can see why they might say it's too big.Dinonerd 18:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: Could the North American cover be added, along with the Australian one?  -- Billybob2002 (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: The plot summary says Halt goes looking for "Cassandra" as well as Will without previously explaining who Cassandra is. This can be fixed, I was thinking something along the lines of "Halt goes looking for Will and Cassandra (which is Evanlyn's actual name) but he is too late."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.37.70 (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing Names
Talk:Planck angular frequency

message: If it's an angular frequency, it should probably mention somewhere whether it's radians per Planck time, or rotations/revolutions/cycles per Planck time. I suspect it's probably the former, but not certainly enough to edit. --John Owens | (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you follow the link for angular frequency, you will see that this term is used for radians per unit of time, so it's the former. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.162.66.19 (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Planck units are basically a bit of fun with dimensional analysis; since radians have no more dimension than the number '1' does, angular frequency is just as legitimately represented by inverse time as any other frequency measurement would be. In this case, with h-bar, an omega falls out, rather than a nu.Darryl from Mars (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which angular?
Talk:Barrow, Cheshire

message: #Article needs to be expanded using Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements as a guide.
#Infobox needs adding.
#Photos need to be added.
#References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. Make sure that as many as possible are "in-line" citations.(See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.)
 DDStretch  (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment Report 

message: This article appears to be a copy of a directory entry (possibly Kelly's) which is not acknowledged. Regardless of that the information given is not current.
Keith D 13:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok - I've reworked some of the simple information and deleted the bulk of the information that falls in the remit of copyright infringement.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright
Talk:Planck power

message: Right now this is just a definition. Needs explanation of meaning and relevance. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of significance 

message: Since h/h-bar isn't part of the derivation, only G and c, shouldn't it really be called geometric power, relativistic power, gravitational power or the like? I'm guessing it would have to mark some sort of watershed in GR.--72.137.164.60 (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly Question
Talk:National team appearances in the FIBA Basketball World Cup

message: * I don't know the answer to this, but the list of teams joining by year, doesn't match up properly to the team results in the results table. Venezuela is listed as having results in the first 3 years, but yet, the debut is listed as 1990. As well, United States is listed as debuting in 1950, but yet, has no result for that year. Figgie123 16:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 16:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States and Venezuela... 

message: I read the first seven paragraphs of this article without finding out that basketball, rather than, e.g. chess or bowling, is what this is about.  And I was not able to find that out without clicking on a link to another article.  So now I've inserted a link to basketball in the first sentence.  Common sense, please. Michael Hardy 19:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. thanks. --Howard the Duck 16:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which sport

message: I tried to use this page for a college essay I have on the World Basketball Championship.
But the tables are full of errors which mislead the reader. It's a shame and I propose for this page to be fixed asap or removed completely.Erodotos5 18:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you specifically tell what the errors are? They're based on the USA Basketball website, with the ties broken according to other Wikipedia articles (the most recent tourneys). --Howard the Duck 16:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah so its the tabulation, that can be remedied rather easily, I thought it was about content or something. --Howard the Duck 10:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed those, if you spot more, don't hesitate to post it here or correct them yourself, thanks. --Howard the Duck 11:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I see the changes. Great! If I see more mistakes I'll try to fix them!Erodotos5 18:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full of errors 

message: "Notes" section after "Comprehensive team results" has this: Teams that failed to qualify to the semifinal round at the 1986 championship were ranked tied for 13th.
However, only one team is listed as 13th. Also, [] has no tied rankings either. 85.217.41.106 (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See this. –HTD 11:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the problem is that the 1986 article and the above list do not match with that. 85.217.41.106 (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. I edited the 1986 article now to reflect FIBA's rankings. –HTD 18:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  tied for 13th in 1986?
Talk:Stevie Smith

message: This seems to be one person's interpretation of the poem. I've read other, more believable interpretations, so I'm removing this until someone can provide a source where Smith specifically says this is her intended meaning for the poem. Teddywithfangs 03:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Not Waving but Drowning" characterization removed - needs source 

message: I added this. I think that the poem is famous enough to deserve a mention.SmokeyTheCat 15:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lady "Rogue" Singleton

message: *Statement i) (Infobox) Died: 7 March 1971 (aged 68) Ashburton, Devon, England
*Statement ii) "...she moved with her mother and sister to Palmers Green in North London where Smith would live until her death in 1971"
Reconcile, please MinorProphet (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox/text mismatch
Talk:Hillingdon Hospital

message: The reference lists only hospital trusts in the London area, but the claim seems to be made on the basis of the article title only, without the context for the comparison. Therefore the statement is dubious, and would be true only if London's bottom 12 hospital trusts as ranked by the Healthcare Commission were also the UK's bottom 12 hospital trusts. —Observ (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I have removed that particular comment which is out of date anyway (10 years old). Dormskirk (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Talk:The Menagerie (series)

message: The vast bulk of this article was a word-for-word copy from various sources. I have deleted all such copy vilolations. Emeraude (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation
Talk:Plasmasphere

message: The article says thats the Plasmasphere was discovered by Don Carpenter in 1963. This information is correct; however, the link to his name is to a different Don Carpenter, a writer. The Don Carpenter in this article is a Professor Emeritus at Stanford University, Electrical Engineering department.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.90.196 (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  I changed the link, but I don't have time to make a page for the correct Don Carpenter right now.  If anyone wants to do it, the following link might be helpful:https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/35210/4/Carpenter_transcript_corrected.pdf Crumley (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect link in article 

message: Please see Talk:Astrophysical plasma#Scope of "space plasmas". Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of "space plasmas" 

message: The article states without a direct reference that the plasmasphere and the inner magnetosphere are the same entity, but this is not true in general (the plasmasphere refers specifically to cold dense plasma controlled by the ExB drift phenomenon; in contrast to the ring current, etc., which are physically co-located but separate particle populations). Certainly the inner magnetosphere is expected to contain the plasmapause (plasmaspheric boundary, typically at ~4 earth radii from the Earth's core) but within the field/literature it is also typically permissible to include the outer radiation belts, plasmaspheric draining plume, and isotropic boundary (interface between outer radiation belt and plasma sheet), which may be at radial distances beyond 6 earth radii. 
To avoid confusion it would be good to find a reference which clearly specifies the definition of the inner magnetosphere, and/or to start a new article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrkinzie (talk • contribs) 06:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equating the plasmapause to the inner magnetosphere and associated spatial extent
Talk:Poisson–Boltzmann equation

message: " Nevertheless, at room temperature, \psi\le25mV and that is generally the standard."
- I'm dubious of what this mean; surely the potential of the surface is material and electrolyte dependant - and so there can be no "standard".   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:D0:F118:222:4DFF:FE83:82E0 (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It should be noted that the Poisson Boltzmann equation can be derived from a mean field approach. See e.g. http://www.memphys.sdu.dk/~besold/INDEX/Poisson-Boltzmann.pdf and there on page 3--Biggerj1 (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi User:Xxanthippe, apparently you do not find this Google search convincing (since you even reverted my edits on the talk page and in the article)?  The fact that making use of the Poisson–Boltzmann equation means using a mean field approach should be mentioned somewhere --Biggerj1 (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a reputable source then. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing easier than this:  or  --Biggerj1 (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mean Field Approach 

message: I find the equations in background and derivation a bit puzzling since the charge of an electron is denoted "e" while "e" is simultaneously employed in exponential functions. Any chances we could resolve this (small) source of confusion? Should we maybe use e for the charge of an electron, even though it is a scalar? Naturvetare1993 (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charge "e" and exponential "e" 

message: https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00523
Could somebody write more about this in the article? Biggerj1 (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beyond Poisson-Boltzman
Talk:Sulky

message: "Also a £125,000 question on UK 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire', What is a sulky."
from the page, as it doesn't seem strictly relevant. If someone wants to disagree with me and add it back in though - maybe add a trivia section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.0.133 (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed

message: As I was hunting for sources to cite, I came across this CV of James Walsh, Australian designer/manufacturer of racing sulkies and dog sulkies. I will continue to look for reliable sources, but the CV was actually interesting reading. I also tagged two editors as 'connected contributors' because their edits strongly suggest they were added by the inventor himself.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  09:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connected contributor