lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Wikipedia talk:Blocking IP addresses

message: Does it make more sense to indefinitely ban specific, vandalism-only IPV6 addresses? Aren't those a lot less likely to be recycled? -- Beland (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPv6 

message: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4454:608:F500:2880:B536:8517:5D79 (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't posted an actual request. To do so, it is typically written in an  format. - wolf 10:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cascade-protected edit request on 3 October 2021 

message: There's another frustrating (stupid) issue about range blocks: it's recognised that with shared, dynamically allocated IP addresses, editors will progressively move between IP addresses within a range, according to whatever is 'automatically' assigned to them. But the block only allows them to edit the Talk page for one single IP address, rather than the Talk pages for all IP addresses within the range. 
The latter would make more sense.  For instance, suppose an IP editor has submitted an Unblock request while accessing WP through one IP address — so they have to post the Unblock request on that IP address's Talk page.  It should be allowed for that IP editor to follow up on the Unblock request at a later time or date (if needed), even though they will likely have been assigned a new IP address by then. 
—DIV Support good-faith IP editors:  insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse collateral effects;  support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as semi-protected, or blocking only mobile edits when accessed from designated IP ranges.  (49.179.9.115 (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP-range blocked editors should be able to edit ''any'' Talk page within the range 

message: I say again yet again: 
under "Range blocks" I suggest linking the term "collateral damage" to WP:COLLATERAL. 
(If you disagree, tell us why.)  
—DIV (49.179.9.115 (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 20:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikify "collateral damage"
Talk:Electron multiplier

message: The electron multiplier is a functional subpart of photomultipliers, many ion, radiation, and charged-particledettectors, and microchannel plates.  I think it's the main gimick that makes these devices meanignful.  The logical place to put a shared-use description of this core function is here in electron multiplier.
jimswen 12:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Electron Multiplier

message:  --Kkmurray (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagram

message: Howcome can a single cation produce 10 million eletrons in the end if 3^11 is far from twenty myriads?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.95.63.149 (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Factor of multiplication wrong?

message: Link is broken  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.138.39.52 (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed link. Manufacturer's handbooks are not generally an appropriate thing to link in any case. SpinningSpark 13:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Burle Channeltron Handbook

message: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/electron-multiplier https://m.restek.com/pdfs/GNBR1000A-UNV.pdf https://doi.org/10.1006/rwsp.2000.0239 https://doi.org/10.1006/rwsp.2000.0315 http://www.massspecpro.com/detectors/electron-multiplier https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273286232_Effect_of_high-efficiency_emitter_on_noise_characteristics_of_electron_amplifiers https://cds.cern.ch/record/923550/files/0601159.pdf
A couple links/resources that i thought would be helpful. Especially the DOI's and the article from CERN Nikob7 (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  added citation 

message: 1) article looks pretty good, lots of pictures were added to show the readers what an electron multiplier is
2) I think it would have been beneficial if you would of put a schematic of the electron multiplier, and explain how it works in detail
3) reference are in order 
4) try to differentiate what a Discrete dynode and Continuous dynode are  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjimen4lsu (talk • contribs) 02:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 10 2019
Talk:Electrostatic deflection

message: Electrostatic deflection is very useful for small deflection angles but is well know to be inferior to magnetic deflection for deflecting a charged particle beam into large angles - say over 10 degrees. Also in electrostatic deflection it has long been the practice to inject the beam midway between the charged deflection plates so as to avoid the fringe fields as much as possible. However it was found by computation methods that deflection aberations would be significantly reduced if the beam were injected offset toward the attracting plate. That way the beam tends to follow equipotentials and the force is normal to the beam direction. Thus offset, all the electrons in the beam are deflected into the same angle. There is an induced astigmatism that is correctable. This deflection idea has been tested and verified. Deflection angles of 50 degrees are possible without measurable deflection aberration. Optimal injection offset is approximately 1/3 of the plate gap toward the deflecting plate. The useful beam diameter is also approximately 1/3 of the gap. See M. Retsky and R. Stein. Testing an electron beam deflection innovation: Initial results. Jour. Vacuum Science and Tech. B 20(6): 2678-2681 Nov/Dec 2002. Also see US patents 6614151, 6232709, and 5825123.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.69.65 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Folk Christianity

message: Just a wonder on this, but how can the neutrality of a LIST be questioned?
Would it be appropriate for the Kakure Kirishitan to be included?  TACO INSURANCE (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: UNtitled

message: In "Other folk Christianity", there may well be such a thing as folk Presbyterianism, but I'd defy anyone to suggest it has anything to do with "holy water."  Presbyterianism knows of no such category.  That criticism ought to be carried through the whole section, which I could describe using Pauli's famous put-down as, "Not even wrong," or perhaps better, "not even original research."  144.32.100.77 (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Folk Presbyterianism? 

message: While I've only read of "popular religion" and "popular piety" within the context of medieval European Catholicism, those terms do not imply an acceptance by the "official" church. Indeed, they are often times portrayed by historians as being at odds with a literary or official religion. Of course, the wikipedia article on popular piety also makes this mistake... Maybe I'll find time to gather some references and fix it, but I thought I'd just make a note of it here. Aibara (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular Piety

message: It seem that this article is currently trying say that any group that calls itself Christian but is not Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or mainline Protestant is therefor a part of "Folk Christianity"; then it starts into how even the first two groups are suspect. In the end it appears that it's trying to define Christianity in a very mainline Protestant/Evangelical way by saying (in a nice way) that everyone else is just ignorantly following superstitious beliefs. This is ironically very unchristian, very much WP:OR, and is very poorly cited. For example, the only inline cite supports that LDS beliefs is not considered orthodox by some, but then doesn't then say that this means it is a "folk religion". This article needs to either be majorly cleaned up, or simple deleted (but not WP:SALT, as it is possible that a decent article could be written on this topic -- the current one just isn't it). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Seeming unorthodox by someone != Folk Christianity
Talk:Electrostriction

message: quote:
"When an electric field is applied to the dielectric, the opposite sides of the domains become differently charged and attract each other, reducing material thickness in the direction of the applied field (...)"
Now have a look at this picture
   -------E---------------------------->
   -------E---------_____________------>
   -------E---------|-(-)---(+)-|------>
   -------E---------|-(-)---(+)-|------>
   -------E---------|-(-)---(+)-|------>
   -------E---------|-(-)---(+)-|------>
   -------E---------|-(-)---(+)-|------>
   -------E---------|-(-)---(+)-|------>
   -------E---------_____________------>
   -------E---------------------------->
Effect 1:
I see that the left side of the body feel a force to the left because the electrons are inside the outside electric field.
The right side will be pushed to the right by the electric field because of the positive charge.
Effect 2:
Yes, the material will create a field that lets the charges attract each other and make the material slim and high.
But if you think about it you will find out that effect 2 must be smaller than effect 1 because the electric field created
by the charge on one side of the body cannot create an electric field that is greater than the outside field E
The current version of the article neglects the imho greater effect 1 and presents only effect 2
Reply from material scientist:
You are completely correct. The article was directly wrong, and I have edited it. The fact that electrostriction always cause strain (elongation) along the electric field is well known throughout the literature. See for example: Juergen Roedel, Wook Jo, Klaus T. P. Seifert, Eva-Maria Anton, Torsten Granzow, and Dragan Damjanovic. "Perspective on the development of lead-free piezoceramics". In: J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 92.6 (2009), pp. 1153?1177. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-2916.2009.03061.x.
129.241.82.145 (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. The french version of this page fr:électrostriction still has the other narrative in it (contraction along the electric field), and I was stumbling over the blatant contradiction. DieHenkels (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

message: from the article I interpret this as a phenomenon pertaining to dielectrics only, but when googling "electrostriction metals" the top hit is a journal article that measures this effect also for metals. I do not have access, but the abstract is the following:
"We examine electrostriction in ellipsoidal samples of dielectrics and metals. We show that electrostriction in metals is independent of the external shape of the sample, whereas in dielectrics electrostriction is a quadratic function of the shape parameter." 2A01:799:952:4500:25C2:E459:88F:5C64 (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  electrostriction in metals
Talk:Tommy Walker (footballer, born 1915)

message: I have read that Walker joined the Signals but not specifically which regiment. I have assumed it was the 61 (City of Edinburgh) Signal Regiment given his Edinburgh residence however this may be incorrect. Caledonian Place 22:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signals regiment 
Talk:Wax Murdaraz

message: Sources for the topics legitimacy are as follows:
http://www.waxmurdaraz.com http://www.myspace.com/waxmurdaraz Jay-Z's Kingdom Come album (see Wikipedia topic Kingdom Come (Jay-Z album) for B-Money's production) Get Rich or Die Tryin' (soundtrack) credits (for B-Money's production)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wise 7 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 28 November 2006‎ 
:Independent sources are needed, see WP:IRS. KDHX and Rob Swift are both connected to Wax Murdaraz as stated in the article. 
:It is not clear which statements in the article are supported by the existing citations, as opposed to written from personal knowledge of the main contributor.  
:Also, the tone is also inappropriate, using the slang of its own scene (e.g. "crew", "joined along") rather than standard journalistic writing. – Fayenatic London 08:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The text was a copy of http://waxmurdaraz.com/content/about/. Copyright text cannot be used without permission, see WP:FAQ/Copyright. Rather than seek permission to use inappropriate text, I have re-written it fairly thoroughly, otherwise it would have been deleted. – Fayenatic London 17:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Please see WP:MUSIC and explain here which of those criteria, if any, are met by Wax Murdaraz. – Fayenatic London 19:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability
Talk:Exactly solvable model

message: Integrability and Solubility are indeed different
----
If I am reading correctly then the few sentences of this page imply that INTEGRABILITY=EXACTLY SOLVABILITY in general. Inorder to appreciate this these are two different concepts I give
an example where model is integrable but not exactly soluble. 
Time dependent Schrodinger equation in three dimensions:
For a time dependent Schrodinger equation in three dimensions with a spherically symmteric potential(which means that potential only depends on the radial co-ordinate r, and not on \theta,\phi). One can show that the Hamiltionan of this system H commutes with both L^{2} and L_{z}, and also L^{2} and L_{z}
commute mutually(any undergraduate quantum mechanics text will have this). The system has three degrees of freedom, and three conserved quantities H, L^{2} and L_{z}. 
Hence this systems in the sense of Liouville is integrable. However, from our knowledge of partial differential equations we know that there are two potential namely r^{2} and \frac{1}{r} which this can be exactly solved. Hence, solubility is more strict condition than integrablity. 
This is enough to show that INTEGRABILITY \neq EXACTLY SOLVABILITY in general.
Hence special care should be taken when talking about exactly soluble models.
--Physics vivek (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Excitable medium

message: I've created the following animation that shows the evolution of the cellular automaton described in this article. 
If no one objects, I intend to add this to the article. Done.
4dhayman (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image for this article 

message: I created a video to visualize the formation of spiral waves and uploaded it on Youtube: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqokhwFO5hY. 
It might be added as a reference in the spiral wave section. 
Kind regards, Jan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.238.56 (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formation of spiral wave using the forest example 

message: The rules given in this section are not the simplest possible for a CA modeling an excitable medium.  In particular, the rule for the refractory period is more complicated than in the simplest case.  I added a reference to what is probably the simplest model. Instead of replacing the given model in this article with that one, I simply noted that simpler rules exist, giving the reference and a link to a Wikipedia article.  I noted that the rules given here were appropriate for the Forest Fire application. This section could certainly be improved further.  Sph110 (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Forest Fire model
Talk:Büyük Menderes River

message: ==Move==
Google:
*"Maeander River" returns 591 hits (Wikipedia is excluded, however some of the hits are from Wikipedia redirects like answers.com) 
*"Meander River" returns 32,200 hits 
Moving page per common name. Baristarim 23:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Google:
*"Maeander River" returns 591 hits (Wikipedia is excluded, however some of the hits are from Wikipedia redirects like answers.com) 
*"Meander River" returns 32,200 hits 
Moving page per common name. Baristarim 23:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: *"Meander River" returns 31,500 hits, however most of those refer to rivers of the same name in other countries: a Google research with the exact expression "Meander River" and the word "Turkey" minus wikipedia returns 1,470 hits .
*Similar search with "Menderes River" returns 9,450 hits 
Along with being the official name, it is also the most common name. Many sources (Columbia, Britannica etc) refer to Meander as its ancient name.. Thus the move.. Baristarim 23:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Second move

message: The verbal description of the river is interesting, but I do not know my Turkish cities very well. Is there any chance of a map tracing the meandering route of this river?  --Prairieplant (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of the river?
Talk:Exponential dichotomy

message: I created this page shortly after taking a course in dynamical systems, and I haven't reviewed any of that material for well over a year, so I would appreciate if someone else who is more knowledgeable in the area could help fix something.  Specifically, the beginning of the definition needs some expository information about the behavior of nonlinear dynamical systems near equilibrium points (and why the definition is given in terms of properties of a linearization near the equilibrium point).
I don't mean to bash the anonymous editor who thought they were fixing the article, because it was my fault that this was not better explained, but please do not change the technical details of a technical article unless you are knowledgeable in the subject.  If the article sounds fishy, use the talk page.  Exponential dichotomy, like the concept of hyperbolicity that it extends, is an important concept primarily for non-linear systems, which often don't have closed solutions and so for which qualitative properties (such as exponential dichotomy) of equilibrium points is extremely important. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 09:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation
Talk:Nebra (Unstrut)

message: Please re-spell with English-friendly letters? Nissmitz?
Kortoso (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nißmitz? 

message: This "Nebra Venus" is the closest I can get to "four Magdalenian figurines":
[]
Translated from http://nebra-06642.de/de/venus.htm:
Altenberg is a city in Thuringia in eastern Germany, about 25 miles south of Dresden near the Czech border. The site of Altenburg in the Stone Age was a particularly favorable place to settle. Excavations have uncovered a settlement of the Magdalenian hunters (about 17 000 BP). The tent-like dwelling was visited repeatedly over a number of summers. Floor plans and post holes of residential buildings have been identified. 
The most well known is the "Venus of Nebra", a sculpture in ivory approximately 7 cm high. Bones of wild horses, reindeer, hare, grouse, flint artefacts, burins and knives have been discovered. This field settlement has been known since 1940 and was systematically excavated in 1962 and 1969. Overall, the digs provided about 2250 tools and 10 000 flint waste fragments. 
And of course they quote this article as well. 
Kortoso (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magdalenian?
Talk:Geyer

message: Some content, largely from de:Geyer. Enough to remove the stub label? Captndelta (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

message: Simply input a document into a computer. I was working at figuring out how to get our computer to write what is input in front of you into it. It really works, but then, so does a third rail.
A railway could need less than 2% gradient to make it safe. Getting the computer to understand what is input is quite possible. The key is getting the computer to do all your writing for you, for example. 
The rate of change formula is more easily read in this manner. I do not care to refer to it as a derivative. A 2% gradient from my angle certainly relies on using less than 26 elements, exactly, and converges towards less than 2% when 10 more items add in. 26 + 10 = 36 items or elements. So, using just one element from my little example here, 1/36 = just more than 3%. Exactly 41 elements minimum are needed to start a gradient at 2.4%. Essential, deltad expressed as (x1 + h2) - h3, without a divisor. With a divisor, one simply gets rid of the negative sign. The key relies on what to do when x1 is greater than h2. You divide here and get x approaching 0 instead of 1. When x1 is great than h2, you subtract here and just get a sign of = or +. Greater than 41 elements converge towards less than 2%. 
The result. You will have two tables, one with percentages and the other with whole numbers. Easy enough, I try not to combine the two tables when I'm working. My figuring, at least.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LAMMERGRIFFIN (talk • contribs) 12:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computers Which Writes What It Reads Part 02
Talk:Sugawara no Michizane

message: Jefu has raised reasonable questions about the utility of images from the Ogura Hyakunin Isshu; and until some of those issues are more fully addressed, I've prudently removed this "artwork" from the main article page.  A plausibly superior impression of Michizane has been uploaded to the article page; and so the potential harm to any reader is likely to be minimal.  In due course, I think this should be re-posted when the reasons for doing so can be more fully articulated. --Ooperhoofd 02:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance of image
Talk:Neckarsulm

message: I removed information that could not be backed up with citation or was not adding to the article (ex: Introductory paragraph had a section on the mispronunciation of the city's name.)I would have expanded the history section more, but most of the sources were in German and not accessible online. If someone has the ability to cross-reference the original German article and confirm the sources used, have at it! :) Technocolorhorses (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources and citations