lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Glossary of ring theory

message: Regarding idempotent - isn't an element e of a ring idempotent if there exists some natural number n (not necessarily 2) such that e^n = e? -- Schnee 12:57, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idempotent 

message: I've never heard of a "rng"; rather, the definition given for "rng" is what I've always considered a ring, and the definition given for "ring" is what I'd call a ring with identity, or a ring with 1\ne0.  c.f. for example Dummit & Foote. 68.252.195.169 07:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many important terms are missing, but I am afraid that I am not able to compete it.  -- Wshun — Preceding undated comment added 04:16, 23 June 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rng 

message: Regarding your "If a ring has a Zero divisor which is also a unit, then the ring has no other elements and is the trivial ring", this doesn't make sense given your condition on a zero divisor that there exist a nonzero element such that... A one-element ring can't have a nonzero element and therefore can't have a zero divisor.  What would be true is that no ring element can be both a zero divisor and a unit.  Vaughan Pratt 22:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. –Pomte 17:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero divisor 

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot 16:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: OK, so if I buy into this horrible idea of defining rings to have an identity (ideals aren't even subrings!), then what am I supposed to search for if I want a module defined over a rng? 129.107.61.162 (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Algebraic structures over [[rng (algebra)|Rngs]] 

message: "A subset S of the ring (R,+,*) which remains a ring when + and * are restricted to S and contains the multiplicative identity 1 of R is called a subring of R."
So, every subring contains 1.
...
"A left ideal I of R is a subring of R....."
So every ideal is equal to R.
Some native speaker should change this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.40.178 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Every Ideal has 1 ?!?
Talk:Taiwan independence movement

message: The tone of this article in general is essay-like and is more fitting of a journal article than a Wikipedia article. However, unlike academic works, most of the content in this article is either unsourced or poorly sourced. Several claims and assertions are made about the general nature or understandings of each party to the issue of Taiwanese independence (i.e. supporters of Taiwanese independence and supporters of Chinese unification, as well as foreign political observers), but nearly all of them lack a citation next to them. When citations are provided, they tend to verify only documents and policies referenced in the sentence(s) or paragraph(s), but not the actual claims made in the sentence(s) or paragraph(s). The use of existing citations is also questionable in other respects, such as citing the work of one specific pro-independence group (e.g. Free Formosans' Formosa Newsletter) to make a general statement about the pro-independence camp as a whole.
I have added an "Essay-like" maintenance tag to the top of the article as it would be redundant to retain existing and add new tags to the seven sections which share the same issues: unsourced or few sources which do not verify the arguments made + likely original research (essay-like). Yue🌙 23:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay-like 
Talk:Edward VII

message: Is this in the body? I can't find it. If not, 'tis uncited. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ping FA nom: . Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to cut it. It's too long ago for me to remember the details of why I might have written that. DrKay (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's useful, would just reword it in the body and add a ref. Anywhere you know of that could give us a decent citation? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Edwardian era, which covered Edward's reign and was named after him, coincided with the start of a new century and heralded significant changes in technology and society, including steam turbine propulsion and the rise of socialism" 

message: (non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 20:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC of interest
Talk:Praseodymium

message: In the NFPA 704 diamond of praseodymium, Health, Flammability and Reactivity are 0, 4, and 4 respectively. But for neodymium it is 2, 0, and 0. 
A flammability of 4 means that it is easily dispersed in the air and is easy to burn (such as methane), and a reactivity of 4 means that it can explode quickly under normal temperature and pressure (such as TNT)  .
I checked the history and found no trace of vandalism. Is this true? I can't find relevant information.--DoroWolf (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  About NFPA 704 

message: The article says "Like most other metals in the lanthanide series, praseodymium usually only uses three electrons as valence electrons, as afterward the remaining 4f electrons are too strongly bound: this is because the 4f orbitals penetrate the most through the inert xenon core of electrons to the nucleus, followed by 5d and 6s, and this increases with higher ionic charge."
I don't see any 5d electrons in praseodymium.  Should that be 4d, or what? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Pr only has 3 f electrons to start with, so it doesn't have any remaining. Some of the other lanthanides have 5d and 6s electrons, that's where this comes from. This statement has been copied and pasted from a general description of lanthanides and doesn't describe the situation in Pr very well. Owensumm (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  5d electrons in praseodymium?
Talk:Neodymium

message: The table of Solar System abundances shows the relative abundance of Neodymium. This table does not appear in the source. No comparison to Neodymium is even made in the article. Thus the selection of rows, the values in the columns, and the implied significance of the comparison are all inventions.
Sources don't report the relative abundance of rare elements because they vary widely with source. Giving the ratio to three significant figures is completely unscientific. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not well acquainted with the methods of measuring elemental abundances in the solar system - is this a better source, as it states "Only elements with an accuracy of the solar abundance determination of better than 25% were included"? Reconrabbit 16:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! The study of the abundance of elements is critical to cosmology so there are many studies of various kinds going back nearly a hundred years. The key question here is whether the particulars of the table are significant or just an invention by an enterprising editor. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table "Solar System abundances" appears to be [[WP:OR]] 

message: In this recent change, @Praseodymium-141 changed a sentence related to glass impurities to one related to lanthanide separation. The new sentence seems out of context. I don't understand the change nor the cryptic edit summary.  Why this change? Is it still supported by the ref? Johnjbarton (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The change was requested because the ref never supported the statements about glass impurities; it never mentions glass in the first place. I recommended the change in order to better reflect the information in the source; it probably needs additional work to put it in context with the rest of the paragraph. Information on historical neodymium glass production was not forthcoming. Reconrabbit 14:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puzzling change labeled "+ per GAN"?
Talk:Quaker Tapestry

message: The WP article Irish Potato Famine does not mention Quaker relief efforts. === Vernon White (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Great Hunger

message: Panel says "Relief work:Britain", and refers to the Peterloo massacre in 1849, and refuge being sought in Manchester.  I changed the text but an anon IP reverted and said that the "official name" was "Relief Work: British Isles".  Where is the list of official names?  --Bardcom (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a follow-up.  I emailed the Quaker Tapestry folks and received a helpful response = "the titles of the panels were decided in 1998 by the Publications Committee  before the book 'The Pictorial Guide to the Quaker Tapestry' was published.  The  idea was to standardise the titles which had varied slightly before that  depending on which source you looked at.".  --Bardcom (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panel F6 - Relief Work
Talk:Pavement (band)

message: Is Spit on a Stranger an EP? 
Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spit on a Stranger classification? 

message: 1999 seems to be the commonly accepted consensus but there's an argument to be made that Pavement broke up in 2000. The Britannica article, also the Wikipedia article, mentions that Malkmus broke the band up around 2000, even if they did their last performances in 1999. On their Colbert Report appearance in 2010 , Stephen Malkmus mentioned that it "felt like 2000" when they broke up. I somewhat see a case made for it. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pavement ended in 1999 or 2000? 

message: Why does the article say Pavement 'was' a band, when they're active and touring right now, and they've suggested that new material could be on the way? As of writing this, their last live performance was less than 2 weeks ago... 86.18.238.52 (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Was' 

message: Pavement is a band that has gone undergone influences from so many other bands and musicians in history. Why doesn't the article go into this more? Some argue that one of the most notable quality of the band is the attention that they have paid to other impactful artists that came before them. Fburke 5378 (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence 

message: — Assignment last updated by Fburke 5378 (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism TR 1 pm
Talk:The Elements (song)

message: I corresponded with Tom Lehrer a few years ago and suggested an arrangement for the missing elements for inclusion in a game I was making for a charity.
Tom replied with his own arrangement. https://peterlesliemorris.com/tom-lehrer-adds-newly-discovered-elements-to-his-song-the-elements/
I tried adding this information to the wiki page but it is locked. If anyone would like to contact me to prove this information, please contact me @PeterLeslieMorris PeterLeslieMorris (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia only includes information that can be verified by published, WP:Reliable sources.  We do not accept private correspondence or conversations as sources.  The philosophy is, basically, that if information is of encyclopedic importance, it will be published, critiqued, etc. See our key content policies: WP:V and WP:OR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It obviously can't go in the article either, but I must say that I'm disappointed by Lehrer's version. 's version in the archives is clearly better: it scans and rhymes perfectly without splitting any eighth notes. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

text:  In case you're interested. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lehrer added the missing elements 

message: As per Lehrer's other songs, I have added an infobox for this one. There is no reason to remove it, as including it satisfies the purpose of an infoxbox --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: From usertalk: I'm really not sure why you would remove the infobox I added to The Elements (song), or why you did so in a way that did not generate a notice that you had reverted my edit (so I didn't actually notice you did this until now). The song being in the public domain and therefore available means that an infobox is appropriate, as with the other songs by Tom Lehrer. As other songs by Tom Lehrer have an infobox without any issue, consensus favors this article also having one. There was no reason to remove it. Please review the purpose of an infobox. Thank you. --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Well, it isn't an edit war (no 3RR), but I'm fine with removing the infobox and just having a caption with the song. When I get to my desktop I'll make that change, or you can. My apologies for being overbearing.   -- RockstoneSend me a message! 17:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I am looking forward to your change.  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I added the "Listen" box. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perfect! Thank you so much. Again, apologies if I sounded rude at first.  --RockstoneSend me a message! 02:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries.  I'm glad that we could reach a satisfactory compromise!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox
Talk:Chemical symbol

message: Which element is a non metal in group 1 41.145.192.27 (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hydrogen. Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural Science 

message: The article seems not to contain any guidelines for when to write say "triuranium octoxide" vs "U3O8" with the numbers as subscripts, of course. Mentioning "U3O8" is also very different from using it. Likewise, when should one write, if ever, "triuranium-235 octoxide" rather than using a chemical formula including a nuclide symbol? Readers need to know this, especially if they are editing Wikipedia.
I just posted a long comment about a similar issue about nuclide symbols, so for more info that more or less applies also to my question here, please have a look at that. Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nuclear_weapon_design#235U_versus_uranium-235. Polar Apposite (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  When to use chemical symbols and when *not* to. 

message: Why is there no mention of the fact that IUPAC, the official arbiter of chemical terminology, uses the term atomic symbol rather than "chemical symbol" or "element symbol"? See https://goldbook.iupac.org/terms/view/A00503. Samer (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atomic symbol 

message: In the section on obsolete symbols: to reduce clutter, i moved the systematic chemical symbols into a new subsection, “Systematic chemical symbols”. Okay? Should the title of said new section be shortened to “Systematic symbols”? I added, “When elements beyond oganesson (starting with ununennium, Uue, element 119), are discovered; their systematic name and symbol will presumably be superseded by a trivial name and symbol.” Should a source be cited for said factoid? If so, perhaps a source could be found among the sources cited by the article “Ununennium”?
Also, in the list of symbols no longer in use, i was thinking of also separating out the symbols for Mendeleev's predicted elements, into another separate subsection, or at least a separate list. Should i do that? Solomonfromfinland (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say no, because that would break the alphabetical ordering of the list. That doesn't matter so much with the systematic symbols, because those are all 3 letters and so easier to identify. — kwami (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systematic 

message: Element symbols that are English words: He, Be, As, In, I, At, Am, No;
Element symbols that are French words: Ne, Si, Ni, As, Se, Y, Te, La, Ce, Eu, Ta, Os, Au, Es. 129.104.241.242 (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Element symbols that are words
Talk:Pnakotic Manuscripts

message: I've cut "It is possible that "Pnakotic" is a deliberate pun on "narcotic", as the "P" in the former is probably silent." Lovecraft's dead; I doubt anyone else could speak definitively on the matter. Unless someone knows better? --Kay Dekker (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can not find supporting evidence of the claim either. Though I found some non-wikipedia references to another Cthulhu mythos name 'Voormithadreth' being a speculated pun (lisped homonym of Voormis' Address). Then again, Mount Voormithadreth is a Hyperborean location and Clark Ashton Smith's creation, rather than Lovecraft's-- Obsidi♠n Soul 02:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation 

message: Much of the style of this article seems to be written in such a way that a reader with no knowledge of HPL or the Cthulhu Mythos could mix up the actual facts with the fictional background. Example: "Origin" discusses the fictional origins rather than it's origins in the HPL or other author's works. This could be confusing for someone who didn't know "fictional" meant the existence of the manuscripts is itself fictional rather than the contents of the manuscripts.
I've seen a WP code that has been used to tag articles that fictional topics that indicated the article cleanup that was needed, I think that's in order unless someone has time to just make the changes. I've seen the tag somewhere but can't find it at the moment. Bigjimleo (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real World point of view missing 

message: Do you pronounce the P?  Or is it silent?  I've heard people use both methods.  Maybe the article needs a section on pronunciation, with references to show how Lovecraft himself said it.
86.187.167.31 (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you say it?
Talk:CodedColor PhotoStudio Pro

message: :Image:Screen editor.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
— Save_Us_229 23:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Screen editor.jpeg
Talk:Fanny Cradock

message: I removed the phrase that said that Cradock "seemed to be having problems with her memory" when she listed her age on her last marriage certificate as 55 instead of 68. The cited source (http://www.scotsman.com/news/fanny-cradock-1-1139496) doesn't make such a claim. Another explanation could have been that Cradock was simply trying to make herself seem younger than her actual age, as many people (both celebrities and not) have been known to do. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memory 

message: < a column under the pen name of "Bon Viveur"[13] which appeared in The Daily Telegraph from 1950 to 1955 >
but the column was still going strong in the 'seventies; it made frequent references to Chateau Belair 1970!
When did the column finish?
86.148.153.255 (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telegraph dates 

message: As people can see, I've split off the various works of Cradock (all books, television appearances etc) and hived them off to a new and separate article. This means that this article can be better developed to cover her life in prose form, without the long lists that break up the texts in several places. I'll be re-working much of the article over the coming few weeks to ensure it actually covers all aspects of her life, rather than focusing on a narrow area. - SchroCat (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . Can you explain why you keep putting in the information that is now all at another page - Works of Fanny Cradock? There is no point in having it in two places, particularly when this is incorrect, incomplete, poorly formatted, and unsupported by reliable sources. If you don't wish to discuss, but just keep reverting, or if you keep referring to this as "vandalism", I'm happy to open an RfC for wider community input. - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Works of Fanny Cradock]]

message: Is it preferable to have a long list of every programme Cradock appeared in (as it appears in this version, or even this version), or is it preferable to have the information separated into Works of Fanny Cradock, along with all her other professional work? – SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC on the placement of her television appearances

message: I notice the claim that she popularised the Pizza in the UK following her book Common Market Cookery: France in 1973.  I am a little worried about that claim since Pizza Express opened in 1965 and the mass market Pizzaland opened in 1970. Indeed, the first Pizza restaurants opened in the 30s. Also, I am trying to find her actual recipe. If anyone has the book I would be interested to see it. But I suspect it might be for Pissaladière, which is made with a high-fat pastry rather than a bread dough. Joss (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pizza Claim