lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Nabakrishna Deb

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. MER-C 14:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem
Talk:Exploration geophysics

message: Should engineering, archaeological, and forensic applications be considered part of Exploration geophysics? There is an exploratory componenent in those applications, but it seems like a stretch. 
I don't see anything about geothermal energy exploration. Is this significant enough to deserve a mention? Tapatio (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think it's interesting, but maybe the "minor" uses could all be grouped together under one section?  Like "Other uses"?  Under the same reasoning, I'd say geothermal energy exploration would merit inclusion too.  TastyCakes (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Sure that seems reasonable too, I'd just hate to see the information get lost from Wikipedia altogether.  Do you think it might be best to merge "Geophysical survey" and this article into one larger article?  I don't think I know enough about the subject to really understand the difference between the two.  Isn't geophysical surveying just a way of exploring with geophysics?  TastyCakes (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of article 

message: — Assignment last updated by ChloejWard (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: ERTH 4303 Resources of the Earth
Talk:Fast fission

message: Sale koi changi cheez v rakh liya kar.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.32.82 (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

message: Russian WP with a reference to an American book calls (fission–)fusion–fission bomb design a Jekyll-and-Hyde nuclear reaction. Anyone knows something about this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.201.160 (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jekyll and Hyde? 

message: Near the end, there is a note about the reason the fission fragment peaks change. Note first that nuclides close to magic numbers are more stable, so fragments near those size are preferred. Higher mass fissile nuclides can get close to magic numbers with closer peaks.  In any case, a citation is needed. Gah4 (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  yield peaks 

message: The article says that slow neutrons are more likely to fission atoms.  (That should probably be nuclei, but that is a different question.) For low enrichment reactors, the main reason for a moderator is to reduce absorption by U238. But yes, the fission cross section is larger for slower neutrons. In a high enrichment reactor, though, the chance of causing fission is high, fast or slow, except for neutrons that escape. Gah4 (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons
Talk:Cyprus Basketball Federation

message: There is no need to relist all the past winners of the Cyprus first division basketball championship here. There is a separate article dealing with this. See Cyprus Basketball Division 1. StephP 00:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

message: The file :c:File:FinleyHOCmaiden.jpg has been nominated for deletion on Commons 
 Reason: Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image and previous history of user uploads 
 Deletion request: link 
Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  File nominated for deletion on commons 

message: It is stated that I have submitted my application for emergency travel document on 18th March 2022, as my PR card was expired. My minor child is in Canada and I have to travel in emergency. More than 10 weeks have already been past, you are kindly requested to process my case on most urgent basis purely on humanitarian basis, as my child needs me.some one taking my child without my permission i hope you understand the pain  being mother.  It, s very stressful and depressing condition for  me. He needs my company and I also want  with me. Application no20220318PKISPRT87130RE: 116.71.6.123 (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Application no20220318PKISPRT87130RE: RE 90897234 - Kiran Sadiq - Permanent residence in Canada R304737825 
Talk:Raymond M. Clausen Jr.

message: The article states he was released from the Marine Corps in 1970 as a Private, but he was a PFC when he rescued the other Marines. Is that a mistake in the article, or did he do something to get busted down to Private before he got out of the Marines? Martylunsford (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Private???
Talk:Fermi–Walker transport

message: Should we  not state the metric sign convention in the article? The FW formula given  is for the case in which the velocity vector has squared length -1. Signs  will change if we use the opossite sign metric. Mike Stone (talk)   —Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

message: This article is extremely disorganized. It spends a lot of time discussing apparently irrelevant things. The length of the caption under the figure on the right is crazy, and the ultra-long caption doesn't seem to correlate with the content of the article. Why are the properties of the velocity and acceleration four-vectors even relevant here? The whole thing is a muddle.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree. The whole section "Acceleration is perpendicular to velocity in spacetime" should be removed, as well as "Gravitational forces" section. The current figure(s) do not tell anything about FW derivatives/transportation. In addition the merge should be done. I have a better figure for FW derivative(s). In fact FW derivative is also loosely known as the "Ferris-Wheel" derivative, as it gives a certain measure of precession... Jahibadkaret (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: disorganization
Talk:Fermi–Pasta–Ulam–Tsingou problem

message: Please: Use some common sense.  I understand that some editors may not know that a period set _outside_ the "math" tags in "displayed" TeX may fail to get properly aligned (I've fixed the ones that were in this article).  But the following offends common sense:
: 
:\begin{align}
\left(\frac{x_{j+1}+x_{j-1}-2x_j}{h^2}\right)&=\frac{u(x+h,t)+u(x-h,t)-2u(x,t)}{h^2}\\
&=u_{xx}(x,t)+\left(\frac{h^2}{12}\right)u_{xxxx}(x,t)+O(h^4)\end{align}.
: 
Where was the period at the end of this sentences supposed to appear to be??  Look at the result:
: 
:\begin{align}
\left(\frac{x_{j+1}+x_{j-1}-2x_j}{h^2}\right)&=\frac{u(x+h,t)+u(x-h,t)-2u(x,t)}{h^2}\\
&=u_{xx}(x,t)+\left(\frac{h^2}{12}\right)u_{xxxx}(x,t)+O(h^4)\end{align}.
: 
I changed it to read as follows:
: 
:\begin{align}
\left(\frac{x_{j+1}+x_{j-1}-2x_j}{h^2}\right)&=\frac{u(x+h,t)+u(x-h,t)-2u(x,t)}{h^2}\\
&=u_{xx}(x,t)+\left(\frac{h^2}{12}\right)u_{xxxx}(x,t)+O(h^4).\end{align}
: 
Michael Hardy (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  common sense in typesetting 

message: My good-faith edits on this page were reverted by Headbomb, and I don't understand why. All I did was add first names to some of the authors identified by only last names (and sometimes also an initial). In many cases, such incomplete information is far from enough to identify a person. For instance, who is Kruskal?  Coming from outside the subject, and knowing several scientists with this name, I had no way to know at first glance who this particular Kruskal the article referred to; only clicking on the link, and then getting back, could I figure it out.  Then again, why refer to Enrico Fermi and not simply to Fermi, for uniformity?  Surely there must be some kind of reason, but sorry, the whole naming scheme does not look adequate to me as it stands. Turgidson (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:CITEVAR. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  That does not tell me anything new besides the curt invocation of policy made in the revert.  I still have not received a clear, logical, convincing explanation for this unjustified-on-the-merits revert.  Just proof by intimidation type of argument. Turgidson (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is WP:CITEVAR. Do what you want in the main text, but don't mess with referencing style. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not full names for all authors?
Talk:Thomas Helwys

message: Oh dear. I'm not sure whether to revert this rewrite of the article or not; on the one hand it introduces lots of new information about the subject, but on the other it's horrendously POV-ridden, using completely inappropriate terms such as "victim", "bravely", "courageous", &c. Could an editor who is familiar with the subject matter do a thorough POV cleanup? DWaterson 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, official Wikipedia policy indicates that all editors should write in as dispassionate, neutral, and objective a manner as possible. This allows the facts to speak for themselves, and allows the reader to draw their own conclusions without being lectured to. As I said above, your edit was very helpful in providing new information on the subject, but it would be helpful if you could go through and tone down your language somewhat. As a guide, perhaps you might like to read this tutorial and the policy guidelines. Thanks. DWaterson 21:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag added
Talk:Fertile material

message: The chart is good, but I have a couple of nits to pick. 
1. Not all of the arrows have percentage numbers by them. 
2. Americium 242 is on there is two places, one as Am-242m, and one as Am-242. I came across the m suffix the other day, but I don't remember what it stands for. A note here would help. 
3. Fission percentages are listed, but not what the products of this fission are.
4. Sometimes neutron capture is just neutron capture, sometimes it is a prelude to transmutation involving beta decay. It would be nice if it could somehow be shown explicitly.
5. A more extensive key would be good. a & B (the greek letters) I presume stand for Alpha and Beta particles. Would EC stand for Electron capture? Would that be the same as a -Beta?
6. I see a lot of neutron capture going on, but no neutron emission.
7. Where's the gamma rays?
(71.117.211.59 (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Fission products (by element)

message: It would be more informative, and therefore more helpful, if quantities of fission products were stated numerically, either as a mass fraction of the fissioned metal, or grams per gigawatt year (for power plants).  "A lot of," "a great deal of," ... are not informative.
Van.snyder (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll also need to be more specific than "an actinide"; as they get heavier, the peaks move closer together, and when you get to about the heavy Fm isotopes there is no valley in the middle and the fission is symmetric, which is very rare for U or Pu. Double sharp (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numerically stated quantities would be more useful 
Talk:Kishwer Falkner, Baroness Falkner of Margravine

message: I agree the Kishwer_Faulkner page should be merged into the Kishwer_Falkner%2C_Baroness_Falkner_of_Margravine page. This is the format used in all other peer articles, and I only found the unattributed Faulkner page through the Baroness Falkner of Margravine page. Corvus 00:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Governments of Canada

message: Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Proposal to redirect all Canadian project related talk pages...--Moxy 🍁 22:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to redirect all Canadian project related talk pages 

message: Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information on WP1.0 web tool 

message: I have nominated Timeline of Canadian elections for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.  Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  FLRC for Timeline of Canadian elections 

message: 1995 Quebec referendum has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA reassessment of 1995 Quebec referendum 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject.  This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at [[Wikipedia:Content assessment]]
Talk:Libertarian Party of Oregon

message: I edited the sentence that was recently reverted. The sentence does reflect a point of view, but the irony is noted in the article cited. It is a central point of that article. I think there's room for improvement in the phrasing, and I don't think this point should be eliminated. -Pete 18:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  courts/taxation 

message: There were recently some IP edits, reverted by , about disputed leadership in the party. I cannot find reliable sources about this, but this source -- which I'm not familiar with -- does offer some insight into what might be going on:
http://www.golocalpdx.com/news/libertarians-face-off-in-party-control-showdown
In the meantime, I suggest we delete the names of any (purported) leader, in the absence of definitive information; and list both web site. -Pete (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leadership dispute 
Talk:Kit Culkin

message: who removed the reference to his famous quote "i created you, i can destroy you!" visa vi macauly culkin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.219.186 (talk • contribs) 
: He has never said that. (Eriks 22:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous discussions without headers

message: This actress, Kit Culkin's sister, is mentioned in the article, but it is not made clear that she is the Bonnie named as one of Kit's siblings. This confusion should be cleared up.
Fred Lane (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bonnie Bedelia
Talk:Friction loss

message: Proposed Revision for this article:
1.) Edit the definition to clearly identify what Friction Loss is.
2.) Edit the definition to delete incorrect jargon such as "limited space".  
3.) Give a brief summary of why Friction Losses occur.
4.) Write the Darcy Weisbach equation (the standard equation for calculating head loss due to friction).
5.) List sources used for this edit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BSamson-NJITWIL (talk • contribs) 00:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  BSamson-NJITWIL 

message: I did some clean-up editing and added practical values for water in PVC pipe. 
The discussion of "Causes" of friction loss needs improvement.
ArthurOgawa (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up edits and practical values for water
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Nandesuka

message: The point of the links is that Nandesuka violates his own rules, claiming it's not ok to call someone a troll to their face and doing exactly that to me.  You might also note that I tried to talk to him on his talk page and he admitted that he prefers public communication but refused to talk to me in public without giving a reason.  --Ideogram 00:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he said that there are people it's okay to call trolls, and that's incivil to rudely call good faith editors a troll.  There is some difference between that select quote and the general idea of his message. Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 20:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to reread the quote.  --Ideogram 03:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  links and User:physicq210's comment
Talk:Friis formulas for noise

message: I propose to update something as serious as the Friis' formula with a more impressive expression like 
F = F_{1} + \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N-1}{{F_{i+1}-1} \over {\prod\limits_{j=1}^i g_{j}}}  
Miistecraulei (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

message: Where is the actual source for "Friis's Formulas for Noise"? Is there a textbook that can be referenced? Perhaps a biography that shows the formulae? Even a technical magazine article using and citing the "Friss formulae?" Without a reliable, standard reference, there's no way to confirm that these equations are widely accepted as originating with an engineer named Friss. In my own audio design work, I've seen and used cascaded noise equations for decades, but have never seen them associated with this guy Friss. The Harald_T._Friis Wikipedia bio page references the formulae, but points back to THIS Wiki page (self-referencing). That's against Wiki referencing policy. If this page cannot cite a reliable source for its content and especially the common use of "naming rights" to the equations used, I suggest either rewriting the page in a generic manner ("Cascaded Noise Equations"), or removing the page altogether. Driz7 (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source?
Talk:Fringe shift

message: In the MMX it was not expected that the arm length would be altered by the apparent aether wind; rather, that this wind – i.e. a wave medium moving relative to the observer – would change the observed speed of light, causing the phase shift, thus the fringe shift.
The original author’s contention that the arm length might be modified by motion through the luminiferous aether is a (common) misconception, either motivated by the length contraction postulated in Lorentz ether theory (posited in order to explain the null result of the MMX) or unrelated general-relativistic gravitational wave theory (GW observatories like LIGO also use a Michelson interferometer), both of which were posited later. I have corrected this (historian’s fallacy) and clarified the explanation.
--PointedEars (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong explanation of the [[Michelson–Morley experiment]]
Talk:Gaussian noise

message: I've created an image to upload, but I cannot do so until I'm a confirmed user. If anyone would like to upload it for me, I'd be happy to upload it to free storage somewhere. It's just an image of a fence that I took, and then added Gaussian noise to. It'd be better than the boring normal distribution picture that's up now. Ben.appl (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would like to see a spectrum of such a noise. Hwo does it look like? Where is the difference to white spectrum? 80.138.165.27 (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have an image to upload 

message: The main source for gaussian noise in digital image is photon shot noise, not sensor noise.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.142.117.62 (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if this is right. With sufficient lighing we do not have an photon noise during integration phase. It is mostly electron noise then. 80.138.165.27 (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaussian noise in digital images 

message: In the introduction, it says "A special case is White Gaussian noise, in which the values at any pair of times are identically distributed and statistically independent." Do they not also need to be independent of frequency? Strasburger (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Gaussian noise, 

message: The redirect White Gaussian noise has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  1234qwer1234qwer4 20:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:White Gaussian noise]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: This article defined Gaussian noise asa kind of signal noise that has a probability density function (pdf) equal to that of the normal distribution (which is also known as the Gaussian distribution). In other words, the values that the noise can take are Gaussian-distributed. That fails to say how this signal varies over time, and that omission makes the definition incomprehensible. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's even more confused -- the quoted definition is about 2d, static noise. The sentence following that in the article, and your remark, are about time series, (1D?). (Perhaps I misunderstand.) Strasburger (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete definition