lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Mansfield Cut Underwater Archeological District

message: FYI, Google seems to prefer Archaeological but the article uses Archeological and Archaeological. -- Jreferee 16:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I used Archeological for the title because that is how it is listed at the NRHP documentation.  Firefox gives me a spelling error when I use that spelling in a textbox, and I've gotten used to accepting its suggestions.  I don't have a preference, but agree that it should be consistent. ~ BigrTex 18:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The National Park Service used in one place "Mansfield Cut Underwater Archeological District." See text next to footnote 13 on this page.  If the U.S. Congress named the place, we should find out the spelling they used and use that for the article. -- Jreferee 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *There are multiple references to the Archeological spelling, within the NPS, NRHP, and Texas Historical Commission.  Congress is not currently involved in the process, although I don't know what the process was in 1974.  The current process (from National Register of Historic Places) requires the State Historic Preservation Office to vet nominations which are then approved or rejected by the NPS.  Based on their consistent spelling, I think it makes sense to leave it the way it is.  The Wiktionary definition () is interesting and lists Archeological as a mainly US variant.  ~ BigrTex 21:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archaeological or Archeological?

message: The Mansfield Cut Underwater Archeological District is had to locate on a map since the map needs land features to locate the Mansfield Cut Underwater Archeological District.  This causes the map to be large.  -- Jreferee 17:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense, especially with the nice picture that you found not having a North reference.  I'll change it back.  (I can see it, but I have a good head for maps and was at the seashore last week) ~ BigrTex 18:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It may be too early for me to get hung up on how it looks, but having your nice image on the left overlaps things funny on my monitor, so I put it back on the right under the infobox.  ~ BigrTex 18:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: My googling this morning brought me three more sources of information:
* "ANTH 313" class notes (from Texas A&M) -  not sure if there is anything reliable that isn't found in more reliable places, but was the first source I found.
*  - I added the link this morning, but there is more information about the history of the ships/fleet that can be worked into the article.
* Padre Island NS Newsletter (Fall 2006) - page 6 has two stories about the shipwrecks, there is information there that I haven't seen elsewhere (i.e., the ships were Naos).
I appreciate any help available in improving this interesting article. ~ BigrTex 20:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional sources
Talk:HippoDraw

message: I think this article may be confused, according to the hippodraw website, hippodraw is dependant on ROOT, and as such root is *not* a competing program. 129.78.64.102 08:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The website doesn't state that HippoDraw is based on ROOT. According to , ROOT support is optional. 93.132.124.123 (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: * ISBN 9781155949062: Linux Graph Plotting Software: Gnuplot, Visit, Root, Grace, Gretl, Scidavis, Qtiplot, Graphcalc, Mayavi, Labplot, Hippodraw, Xgraph -Books LLC .... unknown content
* http://www.cs.kent.edu/~jmaletic/papers/ICPC09-study.pdf - Subject of an investigation ... gives some techie details ...
Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  References
Talk:Hohlraum

message: I've changed this (I'm editing the contents of the German loanwords category). This word isn't in any English language dictionary, so it isn't a loanword; but I don't know that it's a German term either. Is the gadget that "the fusion capsule is held inside" called a Hohlraum in German? Or is it a word appropriated for this meaning by those who work in this area (a neologism, in that case)? Any ideas? Moonraker12 (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, (1) Hohlraum is a legitimate German word that might be used in any context, (2) it is also used in German in the context of laser fusion, and (3) it is standard technical jargon in English. --Art Carlson (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! Thanks... In light of your point (2) I'll move it to the "Glossary of German terms" category. Moonraker12 (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Although the word is not yet officially a loanword (i.e. not in the current English dictionary editions), it probably will be soon, considering the current very active research into inertial confinement fusion (ICF). Googling "hohlraum" shows that it is most often not capitalized in the English technical literature about ICF, suggesting that it is taking the same route as other German nouns such as sauerkraut, kindergarten, and angst once did. Is it OK for Wikipedia to take a somewhat pioneering role in this process? Piperh (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  loanword? 

message: The description states that "This idealized cavity can be approximated in practice by making a small perforation in the wall of a hollow container of any opaque material.", though both the photo in the article, and my quick research, shows a small, hollow cylinder.
 Things that need answering
✓ ✗	to do or answer     (use to say shouldn't be done and give reason)
✗         	clarify "small perforation in the wall of a hollow container of any opaque material
✗         	how does it work (i.e. how does it emit radiation at the blackbody temperature? Where does this happen?)
✗         	if it's any material, why do most sources show gold? (one source mentions lead)
Zephalis (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Description
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722

message: I have made motions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pat8722/Workshop#Motion_for_Clarification and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pat8722/Workshop#Motion_for_Clarification_and_Motion_for_Procedure] but have not received a response.  What is the procedure for notifying arbcom that I have motions outstanding?  (I had assumed the workshop page would have been kept on an arbcom member's watch list, but I am now wondering if that is the case).  My motions are requesting clarification or their words, and detail on the procedure they have requested I follow in my future action. pat8722 02:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look at it. If I feel it has merit I will put in at /Proposed decision and it will be voted on. Fred Bauder 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't edit outside your own talk page. Email us if you return to editing. Fred Bauder 16:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722/Workshop|Pat8722]]
Talk:Katapult

message: Is this still being maintained?  Thier site seems to be gone. Terrible Tim 23:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same question, new reason - The site and package itself don't appear to have been updated for a while and Ubuntu's not shipping it by default with KDE4. Has development ceased? If so that kind of sucks - KDE4 is mind-blowingly well produced, but it certainly loses a good deal of keyboard points from this loss. MrZaiustalk 02:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, Katapult has been depreciated in favor of krunner in kde4. There will most likely be no further development on katapult as krunner essentially implements everything katapult did (and then some), and kde3 is depreciated in most distributions. Ormaaj (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Hydrothermal synthesis

message: The article says this method can grow "large good-quality crystals."  Natural quartz crystals can be quite transparent, but the synthetic crystal in the photograph has an opaque-metallic appearance, so it doesn't appear to be of "good quality."  Maybe I'm missing something.  Could we please add more information to the article, to help a non-expert like me understand this apparant contradiction? 199.46.199.233 (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction?

message: I've been trying to find the origin of the word "hydrothermal".  According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word was coined in 1849.  Some modern technical articles claim that British geologist Sir Roderick Impey Murchison coined the word in 1849, and this is consistent with A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles … by the Philological Society (of Great Britain), vol. 5 (Oxford, England:  Clarendon Press, 1901),  page 491, which claims that the word first appeared in 1849 in Murchison's book Siluria, chapter 19, page 459.  Unfortunately, Murchison's book Siluria was first published in 1854, not 1849; however, prior to 1854, Murchison published a book called The Silurian System, which went through several editions -- none of which contained the word "hydrothermal". Cwkmail (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology of term "hydrothermal"
Talk:Hyperelastic material

message: The section Hyperelastic material#Incompressible isotropic hyperelastic materials, the part "If in addition I_1 = I_2, then..." is in my opinion wrong (did some examples, can present a counterexample, but would be interested if I am mistaken), my guess is that the assumption should read \hat W=\hat W(I_1) or \partial\hat W / \partial I_2 = 0.
But before fixing the possible typo: The information in the rest of the section is rather trivial, including the following case (equibiaxial extension, \lambda_1=\lambda_2). Why not ommit both special cases? One could easily obtain these by just substituting into the general formula. Also, other special cases could be thought of, which are not mentioned here - what makes the two so important? The I_1-dependence is perhaps somewhat important (considering the material models in widespread use, such as neo-Hookean or Yeoh), but the individual deformation modes are already treated on the pages of some of the particular hyperelastic models, e.g. Neo-Hookean solid or Mooney-Rivlin solid. Heczis (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expressions for the Cauchy stress - Incompressible isotropic hyperelastic materials
Talk:Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy

message: * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=222.64.223.221&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1
--222.67.209.251 (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are people scared of my posting.....??? 

message: In Australia, I have never come across ICP-AES. I have worked in the mineral assay and agriculture laboratories, and we have always called the machines ICP-OES. The manufacturers also name them ICP-OES. The start of the article says they refer to the same thing, but later in the article is says they have different applications.
The references to AES and OES produces a lot of confusion. If they do refer to different variations of a similar technology can someone please write it, or have a new section with a list of which country the technology is most commonly called?
DeanLeggo (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion between OES and AES
Talk:Leonid Nevzlin

message: I want to disclose that I am paid consultant for the subject of the article. I am going to try and make my edits as neutral as possible but please do know that I have an interest in what the article looks like. If you have a problem with the content I add please contact me here or on my talk page. Thank you. Jaycharbonneau (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: COI disclosure
Talk:David Montgomery (historian)

message: David Montgomery is also the former chairman of The Mirror Group, PLC, of Great Britain, who also edited a host of UK tabloids (The Sun, News of the word etc.)
The "Other" David montgomery is currently chief exec of the Mecom Group, which is buying up european newspaper companier an masse... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.159.198.205 (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other David Montgomery's

message: It is highly unlikely that David Montgomery taught most of the labor historians now active in the U.S.  Yale simply doesn't produce that many historians, much less that many labor historians.  Indeed, a quick look around Wikipedia's "labor historians" category reveals almost none of them coming from Yale. There are thousands of departments of history in the U.S., and hundreds of universities which grant a Ph.D. in history. Most labor historians come from elsewhere, and were not taught by Dr. Montgomery. Montgomery is a terrific scholar and excellent teacher, but that claim is nonsense. - Tim1965 21:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious claim about historians

message: The King Harvest page links here. Does anyone know if the David Montgomery here is the same one? -74.215.109.237 01:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Harvest 
Talk:Labor Notes

message: Someone has redirected the labor notes page (describing the 1800s currency movement) and redirected to
this page implementation.  
Wikipedia pages such as Utopia, Ohio pointed to the labor notes page, not this one.
Since labor notes (as Cincinnati Time Store notes) predate the magazine and organized
labor group by 150 years, and have broader notability today.  I felt it best to remove the
redirect, and created a disambiguation page for labor notes, with options to go 
to Labor Notes (organization) or labor notes (currency).
rhyre (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article hijacked? 

message: I can't find a single citation in the article.--NBahn (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Over four years later, it still reads bascially like an advertisment for this publication/group.  2600:1004:B118:340:D8B7:1FF1:4B5B:49A8 (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Needed (rather badly, at that) 
Talk:Jet (particle physics)

message: Aren't there any numbers of the Forces produced by Jets, such as: speed, momentum, spin, weight and overall energy. I have been looking for a paper with a detailed overview of existing results and predictions, because these Jets appear to be relatively straight forward, but finding this kind of information is easier said than done, in contrast to cosmic-rays particles for whom the energy ranges are quite clear. Anyone?
Michel_sharp (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy of Jets
Talk:Joint entropy

message: I find the definition confusing, could someone clean it up? I can't understand what the notation p_{x,y} means. 140.184.193.48 (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: I translated the entry in italian and in the italian version I inserted the full limit definition, instead of explaining it by words. If you're ok with that I could change it also in this version. Cheers --Smartdust (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limits 

message: The venn diagram states "A misleading[1] Venn diagram showing...."  I'm unable to follow the reference.  In what sense is this diagram misleading? --Yoderj (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to explain how diagram is "misleading"
Talk:Mamoru-kun ni Megami no Shukufuku o!

message: It's unknown if this is an indication that the anime series has been licensed by Kadokawa Pictures USA, however, I have included the title given by the link as an alternate title. --Farix (Talk) 13:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible licenced

message: The title has the last word as O, but the translation guide just below it has the romanization as Wo, which is correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.151.81 (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Google seems to favour Wo, but I've no idea whether there is an official "correct" transliteration.  thinks that it should be just "o".  Does anyone think that the article ought to be moved?  Dbfirs 16:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Wo or O?
Talk:Kasner metric

message: :The Riemann tensor vanishes only when a single p_j=1 and the rest vanish.  This has the interesting consequence that this particular Kasner solution must be a solution of any extension of general relativity in which the field equations are built from the Riemann tensor. []
Eh... if you'll forgive the "original research", if the Riemann tensor vanishes, it's flat, and I provided the co-ordinate transformation. --192.75.48.150 (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special case
Talk:Kinetic inductance

message: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Менде Фёдор reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: 48 hours) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Менде Фёдор blocked from editing for 48 hours due to violating the Three revert rules and for spamming. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war
Talk:Kröger–Vink notation

message: Can someone clarify the part on the Schottky effect where positively charged cations and negatively charged anions seem superfluous to me being not a trained chemist/physicist, but some say only the relative charges matter, but why then need it be a higher charged cation/anion pair? See also the discussion on this subject in the tex.se chat: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/14977021#14977021  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugovdberg (talk • contribs) 19:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Kroeger Vink at chat.tex.sx
You are right, talking about positive cations and negative anions is superfluous. I would either delete the words positiv/negative, or put them in brackets. Johannes Bo (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Positive cations/negative cations
Talk:Scopitone

message: In another Scopitone recording Dionne Warwick lay on a white shag rug with an offstage fan blowing to sing "Walk on By".
I don't know about you, but I feel this needs rewording, in that it's either nonsensical or sexually inappropriate. I have no idea what's intended. 72.79.198.204 23:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Laser Doppler velocimetry

message: I proposed to change the application of laser Doppler velocimetry for both sections: vibration & acoustics as well as the mouse section. Both description refers to laser Doppler vibrometer, and quite clearly what is measured by LDV is the velocity component  along the optical axis. For the case of the mouse application, the surface velocity is derived from this velocity component. My understanding for laser Doppler velocimetry, two beams must be superimposed on the surface of the objects. For both applications, neither is the case.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kusg11 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  On vibration & acoustic section and mouse section
Talk:Leader (spark)

message: Plenty - I suspect this Scholar search  contains everything necessary on its first two pages. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Since there is an archived deletion discussion stating that there are indeed sources for this article, it seems superfluous to permanently disfigure it with a large virtual sticky note that is only of hypothetical value to hypothetical editors. If it gets nominated for AfD again, then than nomination can be quickly closed.  We don't permanently tag every article that survives an AfD with a sticky note, else the encyclopedia would be nothing but headline banners. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Heads up, : the point of maintenance tags is to alert editors to tasks that have to be done to get an article to an acceptable status. If that AfD had not happened, the tag that would be here is . As it is, the current tag records an indisputable problem with the article, and gives instructions how to implement it. You do NOT get to remove this just for shits and giggles. I have little patience with editors who obstruct article improvement by being uninformed ("But I've never seen this tag before!"), believe that our main target is to have badly-sourced but pretty articles ("But it mars the article!"), and assume that edit-warring is how you get your way ("If I revert it often enough it will stick!"). Put another way, if you remove this tag once more without either resolving the issue (i.e., adding sources) or there being a consensus to do so (see WP:BRD), I will report you for disruptive editing and/or edit-warring - take your pick. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Heads up? A threat?  I have replace the useless tag with one that states the issue you identified. Isn't it better to give editorial guidance to the substantial issue instead of referring to some internal Wikiwanking that no-one is going to follow up on? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignorance is not a badge of honour, nor is having to be threatened with a report before stopping to edit-war. Glad to see you have at least realized that talk pages exist. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived AfD
Talk:Lepton number

message: ==Untitled==
Would be nice to see some history as to where and why this conversation law arose. I know from my own reading that it seems to have been somewhere in the 60s(work before this doesn't recognize neutrinos as having flavor, work after does), but was hoping this site would help me out with the details.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon.p.hastings (talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Would be nice to see some history as to where and why this conversation law arose. I know from my own reading that it seems to have been somewhere in the 60s(work before this doesn't recognize neutrinos as having flavor, work after does), but was hoping this site would help me out with the details.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon.p.hastings (talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: If neutrinos turn out to be Majorana fermions, neither the lepton number nor B-L would be conserved, e.g. in neutrionoless double beta decay.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.110.211 (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Majorana neutrinos

message: This process does not violate lepton number !!! It violates the conservation of lepton flavors, which is not the same. 192.12.184.6 (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  mu -> e + gamma