lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Warren Miller (director)

message: * Why remove all the quotes?  Remember this is suppossed to be fun.  At the top it states that these are well known quotes, and used in many of his movies.  Listing the exact movie(s) as a source would be lengthy and cumbersome. Floridagators (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: quotes

message: It was badly needed and it's finally done!  There's still a lot that needs to be done:
*We need images
*Legacy section discussing the Warren Miller Foundation
*Clean up citations
*Filmography?
*List of books he's authored?
Any help is greatly appreciated! --Atomicskier 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major overhaul

message: Yes, Warren Miller is a god. However, this article is very ungodly. There are no references whatsoever to independent sources for anything beyond the most trivial details (IMDb). Give this man the encyclopedic bio he deserves! There's plenty of stuff in a Google Archive Search to get started. Bongomatic 06:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: It looks like someone just copied the filmography from IMdB. It's incomplete. "Ski Bloopers I and II are missing, as is "the Best of Winter Bloopers", Vol, 1, 2,3 and the re-release "Warren Miller: Bloopers, Blunders and Bailouts" (2004). I'm sure there are more, but I don't have the time to look into it.  Someone should cross check with http://www.skinet.com/warrenmiller/download-warren-miller-films-itunes for starters.  Some of his old films (such as the original bloopers) I think were only released on VHS and are incredibly hard to find, even online. Danski14(talk) 03:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see there is also a complete list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Warren_Miller_films). I am not sure why we have this seperate page with largely duplicate information. I suggest a merge back into Warren Miller. Danski14(talk) 04:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography incomplete 
Talk:FastTrack

message: so whats the status quo? does it still exist/work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.127.77.251 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 27 June 2006
:I haven't tried to install the official Kazaa software since it's bundled with adware and similar stuff, but KCeasy with the giFT-FastTrack plug-in works (although I experienced some hiccups at the beginning, the connection may take some time). Right know I'm connected to Ares Galaxy, OpenFT and FastTrack and I can download files, so yes, it still exists. That said, I can't say much when it comes to the number of users, FastTrack's popularity and so on, sorry. 89.2.144.133 (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Current status

message: hello. i am speedplus of wikipedia in spanish. My article FastTrack is very good. can you read. AHHH i am sorry. i am not speak english¡¡¡ OK  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedplus (talk • contribs) 03:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RaZoBaCk 

message: Add a "redirect" and link to AEC's FastTrack's Schedule application. The product has been around since at least 1999, when I started using it. It is similar to Microsoft's Project.
http://www.aecsoftware.com/products/fasttrack/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roofingbird (talk • contribs) 22:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ==
Talk:Hangar 18

message: While reformatting this article per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), I noticed that the original article, first moved to Hangar 18 (movie) and now to Hangar 18 (film), still included the following external links to many other uses of the term "Hangar 18" that are now in this disambiguation article.
* Hangar 18 on UFO.Whipnet.org
* Definitive Jux - Hangar 18 Page
* MUFON - The Mutual UFO Network
* Hangar 18 Indoor Rock Climbing Gym
Also per guidelines, I have moved these links here to provide editors with some initial sources for the non-existent articles. Please note that they should not be added to the article, but are — at best — only references for proper new articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links for uses of Hangar 18 

message: I took out the link to Area 51 because there are virtually no references to a Hangar 18 at Area 51. Any correlation between the two is most likely misinformation mixing up WPAFB and Area 51 because of the UFO rumors. The movie "Hangar 18" is also science fiction and holds no real world value in this sense. 164.107.252.150 (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No references to Hangar 18 at Area 51? The Federation of American Scientists would like to have a word with you. The situation is opposite: Hangar 18 at Area 51 has fans all over the world while only conspiracy theory enthusiasts have heard of one at Wright-Patterson AFB. I'm putting it back the way it was.--Nathan2000 (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The May 2009 poster is basically correct.  Hanger 18 first came to public attention in response to investigations into Roswell.  That Hanger 18 is at Wright-Patterson.  Over the years as UFO hype began to surround Area 51, people who had only a passing familiarization with UFO stories and who had heard of Hanger 18 began assuming that it was at the now more infamous Area 51, not at WPAFB. As photos slowly became public, these people eventually locked on the large building at Groom Lake and started claiming, based on their assumptions, that it was Hanger 18.  The mistake has been perpetuated for so long now that people think the hanger at Groom lake is the original Hanger 18 and the one at WPAFB is a mistake when in fact it is the other way around.  BTW, FAS is far from infallible.Altoids boxes (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Area 51
Talk:The Meaning of the Qur'an

message: Do not delete this article. I shall improve it. User:Hermitage17
Isn't this article the same as Tafhim-ul-Quran ?NMKuttiady 15:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

message: The discussion is being held here. --Wahj-asSaif (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal
Talk:Visualising scientific data

message: Page created to address missing definition in Graph page, and for a description of the scientific usage of versus. Perhaps some merging with the Visualisation pages is necessary. Also unsure how to handle ambiguity between visualisation, visualization, visualising and visualizing, so have simply used my natural methods for now.
--LightYear 06:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't much which is unique to this which can't or shouldn't be in chart.  As for the various spellings, the U.S. English spelling should be used for articles (if needed) & the others can be used for redirects.  --Karnesky 18:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. This page now redirects to a new page, line chart, which is now linked from the chart page in a logical way. Additionally, the links from Graph and versus make sense. Thanks for the tip. LightYear 04:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Sublinear function

message: I do not get the rule about positive homogenity. Does this mean for example log(\cdot), where \log(\gamma x)=\log(\gamma)+\log(x), is not a sublinear function? This is a bit different from what sublinearity means when using Big O notation. -- Nils Grimsmo 06:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Positive homogenity

message: Doesn't a sublinear function exist beyond convex or concave class? (Moved question by 149.135.14.246 at 2007-03-05T17:26:48 from article to talk page) Nils Grimsmo 20:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beyond convex or concave class 

message: I've changed the wording about the variable "c" according to Big_O_notation. Instead of being able to use just any value for c, there should be at least one possible value (hence the existential quantifier in the Big O article). --Andreasvc (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asymptotic analysis 

message: So sublinear functions from a vector space to the reals are semi-norms?  Maybe we should note that in properties.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.254.25.140 (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No they are not the same : a semi-norm p must also verify p(-x)=p(x), which is not required for a sublinear function. French Tourist (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  But -x = (-1)x, so can't we just apply homogeneity?  And we know that -1 is in the field, since that has a multiplicative identity and additive inverses... 141.254.25.140 (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The functionals are assumed to be only positive homogeneous, not homogeneous. So your argument does not apply. Delio.mugnolo (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sublinear vs. Semi-norm 

message: I think that the o(.) definition is out of place here.  The rest of the article describes properties of the linear algebra concept, without specifying which meaning is used.  The two concepts are very different and should have different articles, despite having the same name.  Does anyone agree? LachlanA (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the o(.) definition is a bit out of place. Also note that there exist redirects from sublinear time and sub-linear time to time complexity#Sub-linear time. It might be enough to replace the o(.) definition with a hatnote. —Tobias Bergemann (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mismatched definitions 

message: Of course X can be supposed to be a vector space over \mathbb{R}, because there is no complex scalar multiplication involved in the definition! 129.104.241.162 (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  <math>X</math> as vector space over <math>\mathbb{R}</math> 

message: Over on Talk:Seminorm, the question is posed: Is there any reason we restrict to vector spaces over R or C? The definition makes sense for vectors spaces over any valued field, right? This question applies equally here, as well. (I think the answer is "yes", so the real question is "how do we deal with this?") 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Field of Scalars
Talk:Ben Shneiderman

message: This person will be a presenter at Wikimania 2006 and thus lots of people may be looking here for more information. Now would be a great time to work on this article or expand it if possible! Thanks Brassratgirl 05:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimedia 2006 

message: I removed the controversies section because there is no mention in the source cited that shows Noble has ever commented on Shneiderman. Link is http://gse.buffalo.edu/fas/bromley/classes/socprac/readings/CHE_on_Noble.htm. 69.25.143.33 (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That link points to a review of Mr. Noble's book, not the book itself.  Are you saying that the book does not reference Mr. Shneiderman? Wikipedia doesn't decide whether something is made up, it just reports what the reliable sources say. Chrisw80 (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chronicle of Higher Education is not a book by David Noble, it's a journal (chronicle.com), and the source cited was an article in that journal. I found the text of that article, linked that as the reference, then realized it doesn't support the claim it was cited for, and so removed the claim.   69.25.143.33 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: update - thanks for the change. I'm uncomfortable with a vague claim that 'some people criticize him for things' with no citations and don't feel it's worth including, but I don't feel strongly enough to remove it if you want to keep it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.25.143.33 (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have a point there, and noticed it when I was making the edit. If the controversy has been reported, though, I'm uncomfortable removing it altogether. Maybe we can figure out a better way to phrase it, or better sourcing? Chrisw80 (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm actually not convinced that it's a real controversy. The quote from Shneiderman that is supposed to be 'responding to criticism' seems to actually be a criticism of Noble's general ideas and there's no evidence it was a response to anything about him. 69.25.143.33 (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Fair enough, per WP:BLP the content SHOULD be removed in that case. Please accept my apologies, I'll remove the content entirely for now and look into it more later. Thanks for working with me on it! Hopefully you understand why I reverted your changes initially? Chrisw80 (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, thanks for working with me on it. 69.25.143.33 (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies section
Talk:Howard DGA-11

message: #REDIRECT Talk:Howard DGA-8
*This article needs to be edited down.  Alot of the information is duplicated elsewhere.  For example there is no need to talk about Mr Mulligan here as there is a Mr Mulligan section.  Same with the DGA-15.   Focus on the DGA-11 cut out everything else. --Abaddon 06:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried to do that. It still needs to have some of the unencyclopedic tone taken out; I don't know enough. Also, when was the first flight?  Trekphiler (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Crystallization (engineering aspects)

message: Hi Steve, I read your article (crystallization dynamics part) which is well organized. It seems to me that you did a good job. You may want to edit the "References" section. The references you used do not seem under "References" section. GBoran 22:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messages from Gokhan 

message: Wassup Steve, I can't really think of too many changed to your articles, especially since there are other people (other than yourself ) writing this article too. The pictures are great asset to understanding the concepts. 
Babusingh252 03:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Babu's Comments

message: Hey Steve, this is a really great article. It’s extremely well organized and each section is explained very clearly. In each section, there’s good use of bullets and pictures that make the concepts easy to understand. I really like how this subject is broken down. I don’t think I would change too much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wwc26 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Will's Comments

message: Hey Steve, I think you did a really great job on the article.  I liked how you tied in the Crystallization dynamics very appropriately.  It went into really good detail without being too confusing.  There's not much more that i would change.  One small suggestion is to expand the intoduction to crystallization a little bit. 
Emk39 19:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Elaine's Comments
Talk:Hyneria

message: Press release: http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2018/May/New-picture-of-hyneria-lindae-after-25-years-of-fossil-collecting/
Links to actual paper. Nice life recon, no info on license there. Ask?--Pete Tillman (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a free journal. In any case, our current image actually looks better... FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: New paper on ''Hyneria lindae''
Talk:Rhipidistia

message: Note that Clack ("Gaining Ground", 2002) does not support the use of the term "Rhipidistia" or "Crossopterygia". Biologistchica (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but people still run across these terms, and so need to know what they mean or meant. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhipidistia 

message: It looks Rhipidistia may now have a new official name that's already gaining acceptance.
bgee
ncbi 
Zyxwv99 (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Dipnotetrapodomorpha? 

message: It would be nice for someone to clarify what the "†" footnotes mean here! (Especially if the "?" is what means 'uncertain classification') --RProgrammer (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see it used in other articles now; does it mean "extinct"?  --RProgrammer (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  † footnotes? 

message: I’m no expert on fish taxonomy, by I think the lizard, toad, hummingbird and squirrel in the info box picture may be misplaced. —TroyHurts (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect image 

message: Looks like an error in the image. MakeItSo84 (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhino shouldn't be in the picture
Talk:Ventastega

message: I corrected the formatting, plus added template notes and these references: Scientists, led by Per Ahlberg found in Latvia the 365 million-year-old fossil skull, shoulders and part of the pelvis of the Ventastega curonica, which is more tetrapod than fish and looked similar to a small alligator. The discovery contributes to the evolutionary transition from fish to tetrapods (animals with 4 limbs and include such descendants as amphibians, birds and mammals).yahoo.com,  Fossil of most primitive 4-legged creature foundnews.bbc.co.uk, Fossil fills out water-land leap--Florentino floro (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello i'm brisio
Please sorry if i sound disrespectful, but the page seems contradictin itself: it says "Ventastega was a tiktaalik-like tetrapodomorph" and then "Ventastega is one of the earliest Devonian tetrapods yet discovered"
Ok, i know all tetrapod r tetrapodomorphs by descendence, but the page seems say ventastega is a non-tetrapod tetrapodomorph, a fish still
To me it would be better sayin simply "it's a basal tetrapod" or so
I found this 2009 paper sayin ventastega is a tetrapod and showin it's really 4-legged and MORE derived than elginerpeton, dat is a tetrapod
Look at page two: there is a cladogram
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v16470436056263j/fulltext.pdf
If someone wants, i can modify the page  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisio (talk • contribs) 05:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue is there are several definitions of "Tetrapod" currently in use, some more inclusive and supplanting Tetrapodomorph in usage. This issue won't be resolved anytime soon, at least until PhyloCode. If the scientists are contradicting each other, than that's the state of the science and might as well be reflected here ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ventastega: fish or tetrapod?
Talk:South American lungfish

message: The reference below was added by a bot and never actually used in the article.  I drop it here in case it is useful. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITIS 

message: Really, or should this be facultative air-breather?  I don't know anything about this fish but thought they COULD breathe air, not that they had to.--Paddling bear (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: obligate air-breather
Talk:Lincoln University (California)

message: This article had been reduced to text copied and pasted from the university's website.  I have added content based on third-party referenced sources and edited text for accuracy, comprehensiveness and for encyclopedic, English-language style.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibliotrekker (talk • contribs) 22:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All article text is now sourced or identified as not sourced.  Too many of the references currently in this article are links to the university's website;  better sources are needed.  Also, content based on published, third-party sources has been anonymously "blanked" without explanation; much of this should be restored.  To meet WP:UNIGUIDE standards, this article should be encyclopedic in style, not after the manner of a promotional brochure.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonbuddy (talk • contribs) 18:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  improving article -- still problematic
Talk:American paddlefish

message: *I've listed the article as satisfactory here, but I was wondering if the newly added text about hybrids with sturgeons would make more sense under evolution/taxonomy than where it is now under reproduction? Because it isn't exactly a natural part of its reproduction cycle, but has more to do with genetic distance to other species I'd say... FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And also this.  Oh, and Sandy, do we have a copy-edit type script that will autofix it as we type or maybe something like the Find dups script? Atsme 💬 📧 17:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR note
Talk:Paul Wilbur Klipsch

message: I'm adding a fact tag to the cite about "Audio Hall of Fame". Yes, I know that it is in the official Klipsch bio on the Klipsch company webpage, but what Audio Hall of Fame is this talking about? I can't find any such Hall or any organization that put PWK on such a list of honorees, and I've been looking for a month. The closest I've come to finding out who honored PWK in this manner was a past magazine editor who pointed me to Richard Ekstract and the now-defunct magazine Audio Times, where I found no further information one way or another. 
I would like to have the Audio Hall of Fame defined before the cite can stay. Binksternet (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking it out. Binksternet (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Audio Hall of Fame

message: The logo used for Paul W Klipsch should be this: http://roadtips.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341cad8253ef01157059ec42970b-800wi
which is clearly not the same as the current version.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.98.55.103 (talk) 09:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong logo 
Talk:European sea sturgeon

message: Proposing rename to Baltic sturgeon which seems more common, and also as per listed in ICUN . --Vsion 05:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But genetic evidence has shown, that in the Baltic Sea the European sturgeon was extinct since some centuries and was populated since then by the Atlantic sturgeon. After this evidence they began to repopulate the Baltic Sea with the Atlantic sturgeon, but in other regions they have to wait, cause the (Atlantic sturgeon) Gironde breeding project has not produced offspring until yet. So Baltic sturgeon is a bit anachronistic. --141.35.20.90 15:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose move to Baltic sturgeon
Talk:Lake sturgeon

message: Should this be included in the article?DrChrissy (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sturgeon thunder? 

message: The illustration chart on conservation status is unclear to me.  Does the fish fall into all the categories?  I guess it's "least concern" because of the small text that says that -- but the big circles seem to have priority visually.  Also, a different site (https://worldhistory.us/american-history/native-american-history/a-brief-history-of-lake-sturgeon-in-menonminee-and-ojibwe-culture.php) says that this species is federally classified as "threatened."  And still another site (https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Acipenser_fulvescens/) lists it as threatened but only in Michigan.  Kdammers (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation status? 

message: The description lacks information on length, girth and mass.  Later in the article there is a mention of the mass of one individual.  Aren't figures available for median and maximum recorded values?  NPR has reportage about a large individual in the Detroit River:  https://www.npr.org/2021/05/05/993754390/huge-lake-sturgeon-has-been-lurking-in-the-detroit-river .  Kdammers (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size
Talk:Shovelnose sturgeon

message: To whom it may concern:
I recently added to this section on the shovelnose sturgeon. If there are any comments on how it was done or things left undone please let me know. Any insight would be appreciated in making this a sound article.
4thefish (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shovelnose Sturgeon 