lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Charge invariance

message: charge invariance means - charge is not subject to (special) relativistic effects
if you increase the speed of a (charged) mass, the charge on the mass does not change (unlike mass). charge is unaffected by speed. mass is called a relativistic quantity because it does change with speed. energy is also considered a relativistic quantity. "officially" (conventionally accepted), time slows down and length contracts (along line-of-flight). officially, these two are virtual effects. nothing really happens to time and space. but there is a chance convention is wrong about this assumption. there is a perspective that asserts these effects are real and links it with gravitation and the strong force within nuclei. what is this mysterious "force"? i call it temporal curvature and it is not really a force. it is what is says: curved time. within this perspective and including an associated assumption about space (elasticity), we find some surprising relations .. Charge invariance was my first contribution to wp and hopefully, this is not my last.. here is an important addendum: after 25 years, i finally found a researcher who is investigating elementary particles as elastic deformations in space-time - paralleling my own developments but much more formally. he may claim to be doing otherwise, but his work is Foundational in this realm. his name is Markus Lazar and you can find his papers at arXiv by clicking on his name. we are not associated in any way - so please do not tarnish his image by linking him with me. (i encountered this issue with a french associate who objected to my use of the word 'associate'.) i have recommended developing decisive tests to him and await his reply.. if his ideas survive the test of time and come to be recognized as central to the unification issue in physics, my work here will be largely done (at least in the physics realm) .. you can find some of my work at:
temporal curvature and N and Omega. my name is sam micheal and i sincerely wish you a happy thanksgiving and merry christmas.&Delta (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Talk:106th Guards Airborne Division

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class.  Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met.    --dashiellx (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: Какое отношение имеет Первая Мировая война в событиях первой и второй чеченских войнах, исправьте не точность пожалуйста в данном параграфе. Благодарю. 79.139.131.200 (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Параграф о чеченской войне 

message: * Телеграм-каналы сообщили об увольнении генерала Селивёрстова [Telegram channels reported the dismissal of General Selivirstov]. RFE/RL, 15 July 2023  ☆☆☆—PietadèTalk 18:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commander
Talk:Chiral symmetry

message: I got lost on the first equation.  For U and d quarks the Dirac operators are supposed to have different masses.  How can both flavors have the same Dirac operator?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janreimers (talk • contribs) 20:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely! Proceed! Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Cloud condensation nuclei

message: Shouldn't the article mention the (proposed) relationship between cosmic rays and cloud formation? I created a stub at Scientific uncertainty, and the first google hit I found said led me to solar variability, solar wind, and a 2002 peer review paper. It hypothesized that "the cosmic ray-induced global cloud changes could be the long-sought mechanism connecting solar and climate variability".  
Is this old news, i.e., a hypothesis which has already been disproved, or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its still very uncertain, ythough tending towards "no", but its discussed best at Cosmic_rays#Role_in_climate_change I think, so have linked it. Sorry you had to sacrifice SU to get it :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: With this being wikipedia and all, unless there's consensus concerning the issue, we'd have to lean no for the time being.  If it ever gets greater support, that would all change of course.  Thegreatdr (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

text: It is relativity old news, and has been disproved for recent times.  If you read Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature from the Royal Society you will see that this is not a cause of global warming.  You can also read synopses of the article at New Scientist - Sun's activity rules out link to global warming, Telegraph - Sun not responsible for climate change, Guardian - New analysis counters claims that solar activity is linked to global warming, and BBC - 'No Sun link' to climate change.  --Shagie (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

message: There is so little information here, is it worth merging this to Atmospheric particulate matter for now?--NHSavage (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to atmospheric particulate? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Tiff592 (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: CHEM 300
Talk:La Hague site

message: I think radioactive waste from Germany is not sent to La Hague any more.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.199.115 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm not sure what the official procedure is for POV, but I think this article leans way to much to the Greenpeace POV.
At no point is official data given for (for example) the real radioisotope emissions, compared to international limits.
Also, it would be interesting to see what the plant actually does in chemical treatment, and how the fuel is actually reprocessed.
Fsikkema (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: "La Hague has nearly half of the world's light water reactor spent nuclear fuel reprocessing capacity." Can this be true? A reactor may need 25 tons of nuclear fuel per year, so 400 reactors create about 10 000 tons of spent fuel each year. With a capacity of 1700 tonnes, this is not half of the world's (most reactors are light water reactors) nuclear waste. --Gunnar (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capacity
Talk:Coleman–Weinberg potential

message: This is a general encyclopædia; please add explanatory material to make the article more accessible to non-expert readers.  69.140.164.142 23:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Clarified what was done by Coleman and Weinberg... The page still lacks the Coleman-Weinberg effective potential as such! I wanted to put it here but at first would like to check the normalization of \lambda used in the part of the article about superconduction theory. I'd normalize it in a way that in the lagrangian will be \frac{\lambda}{4!}\phi^4 - as in the original paper and in some textbooks including Peskin-Shroeder. And it would be good to add more references. Don't think that there should be more about application of the idea of radiative breaking - the general article about spontaneous breaking is a more appropriate place. VeNoo (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving the article

message: 1. The Lagrangian given in the article is, more formally, a Lagrangian density. This should be specified in the preceding text and the L in the equation should be written as \mathcal{L}.
2. The field \phi is stipulated to be complex, meaning that whatever internal quantum numbers \phi possesses, e.g., electric charge, the complex conjugate of the field, i.e., \phi^*, has equal in magnitude but opposite in sign quantum numbers. For example: if \phi has an electric charge of Q_{e}=+1, \phi^* possesses an electric charge of Q_{e}=-1. Consequently, the field operator \phi^{*}\phi is electrically neutral. More technically,  one may say that \phi^{*}\phi is a "gauge singlet" for all U(1) gauge theories under which \phi is charged. The point is that the Lagrangian density as shown in the original equation contains \phi^{2} and \phi^{4} terms, which result in an overall charges of +2 and +4, respectively, assuming \phi has a Q_{e}=+1 operator. This is contradictory to the requirement in quantum field theory that the Lagrangian (and the vacuum) must remain neutral under any conserved gauge symmetry. The proposed revision is to instead write
: \mathcal{L} = -\frac{1}{4} (F_{\mu \nu})^2 + (D^{\mu} \phi)^{*}(D_{\mu} \phi) - m^2 (\phi^{*}\phi) - \frac{\lambda}{6} (\phi^{*}\phi)^2
The overall normalization of each term, e.g., \frac{1}{6} in the (\phi^{*}\phi)^2 term still need to be checked for internal consistency.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.173.139 (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Revision: Changes to the First Equation
Talk:Collider Detector at Fermilab

message: I am unhappy with this phrase in the text of the article: "If a charged quark is passing through the detector..."
Quarks hadronize before passing through the detector. This should be rephrased.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.27.142.107 (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color confinement
Talk:ECMA

message: ----
It seems a bit silly that we have
Ecma is short for:
* (formerly ECMA, now Ecma International)
ECMA is short for:
* (stuff that does not include the standards organization, even though it used to be called ECMA)
IMHO, it should all be under ECMA is short for, because ECMA still does refer to Ecma, even if newer references are supposed to use the later.
Thoughts? Aij 22:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Category talk:Combinatorialists

message: I did a google test on the naming and obtained 18,600 hits for Combinatorialists and
only 801 hits for Combinatorists, including this WP page.   I say it's time to rename the category and move everyone.   Mhym 22:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I never ever heard combinatorist, and always heard combinatorialist. It is ridiculous that this page has this name.
LET US CHANGE IT.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netuddki (talk • contribs) 05:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's change the name!
Talk:Protein precipitation

message: Hi Babu, I found your article. It seems very well organized. You had covered a lot of material which is good. Concerning titles, there are three of the same "Attractive Electrostatic Force" you may want to change. Also you may want to add some references for the information you added. That is all for now. GBoran 22:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messages from Gokhan 

message: Hey Babu, I agree with Gokhan. Your article is very well organized and you split up the information appropriately. The titles of your sections seem vague and need to be more specific. If you could add more images that would be useful because this subject involves many different procedures that could be outlined with those images. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vivek216 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review by Vivek 

message: Hey Babu, I think that your article is great.  However, one thing you may want to add is a larger intor that discusses why protein precipitation is important and list the most comon examples of how it is used (and maybe link your article to these methods).  Again, this is just a small detail, and overall I think your article is great.
ReginaSophia 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review by Regina 

message: Hey Babu! Great article.  I think that there was a lot of great research you did.  I really liked the chemistry detail you went into and it really descibes what is going on in the molecular base.  However, I agree with Regina that maybe you should have an overall discussion on the importance and uses of precipitation in the industry.
Emk39 19:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review by Elaine
Talk:Duke Diet and Fitness Center

message: Please reconsider your proposed deletion of the Duke Diet & Fitness Center. This center is a legitimate extension of Duke University, 29 years old. If you have any specific criticism of the article, let me know.
Please note wiki policy on pages like this:
Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for guidelines on corporate notability.
*The main problem is that it reads like an advert (links to success stories) and offers nothing on how Duke Diet and Fitness Center meets the notability guidelines at WP:CORP. Nuttah68 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Talk:The Night Flier (film)

message: I vividly recall that this movie aired on HBO BEFORE it was released in theaters. 98.221.124.80 (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Release Date

message: It's currently still a stub, but I had to replace the plot section that was there before, because it seemed nonsensical, let alone a poor description of the film itself. ArdClose (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: Since the article is a stub its should be expanded, the plot, production information, and reception would be nice.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion
Talk:Certificate of occupancy

message: Would this image (click here for the image) be considered fair use? (Source of image: ) Noone 22:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture of Document

message: Why is there a NY specific section on regulations? Seems like it should be taken out. --Messeis1 (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New York Specific
Talk:Cryomodule

message: The article contains some content copied fron Superconducting Radio Frequency. See that article's history list for attribution. BR84 (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Cryopump

message: We're going to need a picture for this if wikipedia is ever going to amount to anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.157.65.2 (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Why is Torr used here? Is there a particular reason? I would tend to prefer the SI unit EAR47 (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pressure unit
Talk:Current sheet

message: What is N in the I*N*L substitution? That should be explained. 128.211.169.1 (Talk) 16:10, 21 November 2014‎ 
:Must be the wires per length, which I would write instead as n = N/L, where N is the number of wires in length L, like  turns per length for a solenoid. Could be written more clearly in terms of surface current (density) K. Wicklet (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Explain variables used
Talk:Dalitz plot

message: Admittedly Higgs physics isn't my niche, but I'm not aware of Dalitz plots having ever been used to study the Higgs boson, despite what Frank Close wrote in Dalitz's obituary in the Guardian. Can someone provide an actual example (i.e. ATLAS/CMS paper) of a Dalitz plot being used in a Higgs analysis? — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dalitz plots for Higgs analyses
Talk:Dooney & Bourke

message: I'm pretty sure I hear the UN officially classified D&B's labor practices as child slavery. Does anyone know more about this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jschager (talk • contribs) 18:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slavery?
Talk:Fortress Besieged

message: I'm wondering which kind of sources you are after. Would you like a link to a bookstore, to be sure that the book actually exists? A cross-link to the Chinese Wikipedia?
79.228.150.31 (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "sources needed" - which kind? 

message: The plot summary on this page contains an over-detailed writeup of the first third of the book, followed by almost no coverage of the second two thirds. Expanding on those parts (and shortening the first part) would be appropriate.
Martyn Lovell (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary is uneven
Talk:Degassing

message: I didn't see anything about metal degasification here, would it be appropriate to integrate it, or are these two different subjects? — 165.91.11.12 (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For a common method of degassing molten metal before casting, see Sparging (chemistry)#Metallurgy (a.k.a. gas flushing). (Other ways, such as vacuum degassing, might work too; don't ask me.) - A876 (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: metal degasification
Talk:Degree of ionization

message: Chemistry usage of "degree of ionization" means the degree of dissociation. See german wikipedia for further details :de:Dissoziationsgrad --Biggerj1 (talk) 10:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: See title. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't it {{chem|He|2+}}? 

message: In physics, from my experience, the terms degree of ionization, ionization degree, fractional ionization, ionization fraction, and degree of fractional ionization are all used interchangeably and can refer to either
* the proportion of neutral particles of a particular species that have been ionized, or
* the proportion of electrons/electron abundance/electron fraction
depending on the author. Currently, the article only mentions the former. Before I change the article to reflect the existence of both meanings, I think additional comment is needed from others with more experience than myself. (Note the lack of diversity in the sources I reference.) CoronalMassAffection (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics usage
Talk:Deposition (aerosol physics)

message: I suggest this article would benefit from a section on occult deposition 
Jebus989</font>★ 13:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occult Deposition 

message: I am not sure if this topic warrants a separate article at present. On the other hand, I am unsure if it should be merged with Aerosol (in a section on removal processes) or Atmospheric particulate matter. Any thoughts?--NHSavage (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, we could merge some of the content to one and some to the other but then where do we redirect?--NHSavage (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge for now? 

message: Nucleation scavenging. This is not a physical scavenging process strictly speaking. It stands for the conceptual representation of aerosol activation to cloud droplets within aerosol computer models. Aerosols and cloud droplets are mostly treated separately within computer models so that aerosol activation to cloud droplets represents a loss process that can be assimilated with aerosol scavenging. This doesn't make sense to me. Clearly if a cloud droplet forms around a cloud condensation nucleus and that droplet then falls out of the atmosphere, the aerosol is lost from the atmosphere. While some computer models may not explicitly represent this link, surely that does not mean it is not a physical scavenging process? Or am I missing something? Perhaps we are in the nuances of the term scavenging.--NHSavage (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see this link for an example of the concept being used outside the context of modelling. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003JD003647.shtml. --NHSavage (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not strictly true?
Talk:Dichroism

message: ----
"An example is the dichroic prism, used in some camcorders, which uses several coatings to split light into red, green and blue components for recording on separate CCD arrays. This kind of dichroic device does not usually depend on the polarization of the light. The term dichromatic is also used in this sense."
Wouldn't this be "trichoic prism" and "trichromatic"?  131.48.240.240 (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here the "dichroic" refers to each of the color-splitting dichroic mirrors in the color beamsplitting prism assembly.  See here; I didn't find much on "trichroic prism" in books, but some journal articles use that term instead. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Mikhail Zoshchenko

message: I edited the first paragraph of the biography to adjust the language on Zoshchenko's relation to the Serapions.  He certainly ran in that literary circle, but I don't know if it can be said that all his work "agrees" with them.
Heresybythought (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Influence of Serapions?

message: Please remove the Facebook page called "Zoshchenko" since it is a redirect to Wikipedia > Mikhail Zoshchenko. Wikipedia has disabled the feature "unlike" at the original Facebook page for Zoshchenko, which makes it impossible for FB users to "unlike" the page (if they had previously) or to use the page in any way. Could you please fix this?
--Catchamackerel (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Editors using Facebook for Topic

message: Hi everybody. 
Approximately 50% of the wiki's say he was born in Poltava, Ukraine. The other 50% mean he was born in Leningrad.
How can that ?
Can someone help in this context ?
See also fr:Discussion:Mikhaïl Zochtchenko#Gloups (initial version)
Thanks.
Erasmus.new (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Where was he born ?

message: How is he 103.134.135.0 (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mikhail zoschenko
Talk:Dirac operator

message: How about mentioning generalized Dirac Operators. Unfortunately I'm not 100% sure about the definition right now. It might be D is called generalized Dirac operator iff D^2 - \nabla ^* \nabla is differential operator of first order. But I'm not sure, whether \nabla has to meet requirements regarding the compatibility with the metric or the Bilinearform used to to define the Cliffordmultiplikation, used to define the Diracoperator. JanCK (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  generalized Dirac Operators 

message: Maybe someone wants to mention the free dirac operator D_0
D_0 := c\alpha \cdot (-i\hbar\nabla_x) + mc^2\beta
Where \alpha = (\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3) are the off-diagonal Dirac matrices and m the mass of an electron a. It acts on a four-component wave function \psi(x,t) \in L_x^2(\mathbb{R}^3, \mathbb{C}^4). It can also be extended to a self-adjoint operator on that domain.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.187.111.157 (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Dirac operator
Talk:Snow Bowl (1950)

message: I've been scrolling through Buckeye related articles today, since I'm bored and apparently have nothing better to do. Anyway, I found this article and noticed a slew of grammatical errors, particularly in the first section, that even make it a little difficult to understand. I shall fix the blaring errors that I notice.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.105.151 (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You could punt on first down if you didn't want to risk turnovers on offense, yet move the ball downfield. Rkevins82 03:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  grammar? 

message: Bob Momsen was from Ohio State. Tony was from Michigan.
http://media.www.thelantern.com/media/storage/paper333/news/2005/07/19/Sports/Twelve.Added.To.Osu.Athletics.Hall.Of.Fame-963174.shtml?sourcedomain=www.thelantern.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com
Jshecket 21:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Momsens are backwards in article.