lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Nüshu

message: @Remsense, I noticed you're monitoring this page, so I was curious for your thoughts on this. The extinct language article (which should probably be linked) makes a distinction between a language being extinct (no first-language or second-language speakers) vs. just dead (only second-language speakers). The linguists I know hate the trope of languages being declared extinct when they're actually not, and I wonder if that's happening here. Per the article, Nushu still clearly has at least some people who can write it with some level of fluency. Sdkb talk 18:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an important distinction between "language" and "writing system" also. I wouldn't really emphasize the "extinct" versus "dead" distinction with writing systems, since writing is a much more solid, comparative thing than spoken language. For example, people can decipher the spoken sounds the Etruscan script corresponds to much more successfully than they have then pieced together the Etruscan language itself, since we only have tiny fragments of textual evidence. Contrastingly, Tuhua is very much a living language, so it makes sense people have a firm understanding of how a phonetic writing system for it works. Remsense诉 18:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Where does that leave us in terms of any changes that we might need to make? (I'm trying to get at least the lede in better shape prior to the upcoming Main Page appearance of the Hidden Letters DYK.) Sdkb talk 18:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'll take a look at it today ASAP and fix what I can, and let you know if there's anything else. Thanks for the attention to this lovely bit of history. :) Remsense诉 18:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead, extinct, or neither? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Kirstie23 (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Minorities and Subcultures in East Asia
Talk:Pre-production

message: a search on synopsis goes straight to a summary or abstract. These both topics do not mention the screenplay synopsis and it's pivotal importance in the pre-production phase (which even includes storyboarding).
I propose an article on the synopsis with regards to screenplay Synopsis (Screenplay). The synopsis is what is used to sell the script and therefore very important. 
regards, newbie  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennismayflower (talk • contribs) 01:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: Please note that per Hyphen#Prefixes and suffixes, the word shouldn't be hyphenized: preproduction. I'm not acting boldly because google yields much more pages with hyphenized version. Google is not authoritative, if there are reliable sources which use proper (non-hyphenized) form, please do include them in the article and then rename it. Kubanczyk (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preproduction instead of pre-production
Talk:Orthologue

message: The majority of references I've found to "orthologues" or "orthologous genes" uses "ortholog" as the singular, not "orthologue." I suggest we eliminate the redirection, moving this page to "ortholog" and correcting all linked pages (Evolution, etc.). Any comments? I'll wait a month or two for feedback. --kramtark 13:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be a case of AmE vs BrE, but for what it's worth, the same is true for me. However, I don't think it's accurate to say that orthologue is the singular. Although I thought it was going to be a case similar to analog(ue), I'm moving the page based on this Google search indicating the ue might be something BrE speakers do so they don't sound "too American"; a Googlefight showed 5 million for ortholog and 800k for orthologue. I know Americans are always disproportionately represented, but that's something of a landslide. :) Moulder 02:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthologue vs. Ortholog
Talk:Numerically controlled oscillator

message: The following isn't written in an encyclopediac tone and is at best confusing (and I suspect is at worst actually incorrect). Shop manuals for gear you have around do not make readily accessible references. --Wtshymanski 17:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved text

message: The editor was confused. The diagram is normalized to one cycle. So the text is correct, Delta F is the integer step size and the diagram is correct, when the phase is normalized to one cycle, the step-size is Delta F/2N. JPatterson (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undid revision 365380425 by [[Special:Contributions/194.128.29.93|194.128.29.93]] ([[User talk:194.128.29.93|talk]])  

message: I think the following is only part of the story:
"Amplitude truncation spurs can not be mitigated in this fashion. Introduction of noise into the static values held in the PAC ROMs would not eliminate the cyclicality of the trunction error terms and thus would not achieve the desired effect."
What the author doesn't mention is that WGN can be added after the ROM and would indeed eliminate the cyclicality of the truncation error terms.
I recommend revising the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhearty1 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim about dither as mitigation for amplitude spurs
Talk:Clenshaw algorithm

message: What about Chebyshev polynomials of the second kind? Can they be evaluated quickly?
Yes, they can be evaluated quickly, just replace x with 2x in the expression for b_0. As a matter of fact, the Clenshaw algorithm is a general method for evaluation of a linear combination of functions that can be expressed using a recurrence formula. If you like, I will describe the general algorithm including the references to relevant literature.
--Zdeněk Wagner (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is quite easy. Look at the definition of Chebyshev polynomials. T_{n} is thus a polynomial of n-th order. If you combine the above written equation, you get the set of N+1 linear equation for N+1 unknown coefficients a_{n}. In practice you never obtain Chebyshev expansion that way. There are several kinds of polynomials that can be defined by recurrence relations. When determining polynomial series of such polynomials, you often take advantage of their orthogonality or you obtain them as a solution of a differential equation of some kind etc. Now you need to evaluate the function value of such an expansion for some x. The direct use of the expansion in such polynomials is computationally demanding because you have to evaluate all polynomials and then sum them. Moreover, their coefficients are often large with opposite signs so that there is high risk of round-off errors. The Clenshaw formula allows you to evaluate the function value by a recurrence relation without evaluating the polynomials. It is therefore much faster and almost always numerically stable. The equation given here is just a special form for evaluating the series of Chebyshev polynomials of the first kind, but the algorithm can be used for any polynomial that obeys some recurrence relation. When I have some more time, I will rewrite this chapter generally including detailed derivation and references to literature. --Zdeněk Wagner (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: This article is like an answer from the Microsoft User Support: short, correct and absolutly useless. It is just for people who have known it allready better before. Now they have learned that there is another suffisticated way to explain it complicated. See Alan Greenspan's Methode: "If you understand it, I haven't explained it properly." CBa--79.219.230.24 (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Like Microsoft User Support
Talk:Damaged Goods (Davies novel)

message: While there's no doubting that homosexuality of a couple of the characters does impact on the plot of Damaged Goods at times, personally I think that including it in the "LGBT literature" category may be stretching things a little. At the end of the day it is just a TV tie-in novel, after all. (Albeit an excellent one!). Opinions? Angmering 20:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That category also contains Blake's 7 Fan Fiction, so it's not all high-brow stuff ;-) Tim! (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ye Gads, we have an article on that? ;-) Angmering 21:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I would say the category is tendentious. And, unfortunately, the article reads far too much like a fan piece. Charles Matthews 08:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LGBT category

message: I'm curious why this book's entry has so much information (most of which isn't even ABOUT the damn book, but rather about the author) when none of the other NA books that I've looked at has more than a summary paragraph.
Why does this book rate such a huge entry while the others get squat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwanderson (talk • contribs) 00:50, April 21, 2008
:Because nobody's taken the time to develop the other articles any further.  It's not part of a deliberate policy.  I'd hypothesize that this particular novel got the in-depth treatment sooner than the others because its author later went on to spearhead the successful revival of Doctor Who on television, but there's no reason that the other New Adventures couldn't have articles covering as much detail. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Josiah's basically right. I like the book; I'd recently read it, and I had the resources available to make a well-sourced article about its writing and background, so I thought... why not? Angmering (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the hell?
Talk:Bromley Cross railway station

message: I get trains once every other week or so from Bromley Cross. Where's your source to say that it's a request stop? Anywhere official, or just a rumour? It isn't true.
--Rob Moss 14:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't a request stop. I believe Entwistle is a request stop, though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.157.173 (talk) 09:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request stop

message: The station is wrongly positioned on Google Earth, it should be at 53 36 50.85N, 2 24 38.28W, the station on Google Earth is actually Hall i' th' Wood.82.30.60.150 21:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Location

message: Bromley Cross Box is not a signalbox anymore, it does not signal trains nor does it act as a fringe between Piccadilly and Preston. It does not control any points. It is now a Crossing keepers box, purely there to manage the pedestrian gates. It has got signal levers which can put the up and down signals, which protect the crossing, to danger.
Adrian Schofield RDR Signalman (ret)
:The above was posted on the article page with , on 15:49, 18 December 2010 by 81.105.144.183. I have moved it here so that it may be discussed per WP:TALK. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a reference for this, per the policy on verifiability; something from The Railway Magazine or Modern Railways would be good. I am afraid that personal knowledge, however accurate, is inadmissible, per the policy on original research. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Signal box
Talk:Hall i' th' Wood railway station

message: Again, this station, just like Bromley Cross, is not a request stop. Entwistle is however, and will remain, a request stop.
--Rob Moss 14:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a request stop 

message: The article states "Hall i' th' Wood ... is the last stop before Bolton on the ... line into Blackburn and Clitheroe.". If you're travelling in such a manner that you'll reach Blackburn then Clitheroe, then Hall i' th' Wood is the first station after Bolton, not the last one before. That would be Moses Gate (or at least it was, when I commuted between Hall i' th' Wood and Salford Crescent, 1992-4). --Redrose64 (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direction
Talk:Carica

message: I've removed the note about "dr. moi" and replaced it with a less specific sentence referring to the San Antonio Botanical Gardens. Dr. Moi, while mentioned on the internet, is only mentioned three times, and then there is confusion about his/her name. Additionally, it seems he is selling the seeds (and that he may have died?). As such, I don't think there's doubt that SABG has created a new hybrid Carica. As such, I've left that information in. As well, I have done some copyediting to change the tone of the article. Avriette 14:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Moi/copyedit 

message: According to what I read on the wiki plants project guidelines, if there's only one species left in a genus, the genus should automatically redirect to it.
I.e. Carica should redirect to Carica papaya. Bumper12 17:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: I'm wondering how Carica papaya is the only species left in the genus. Does it grow wild? Are there not wild relatives in other species (and therefore other genera if C. papaya is the only member of the genus)?  I need to do some more research, but this restricted circumscription is based on Badillo's work, is it not? I'm struggling with the taxonomy in Mountain Papaya, but from what I see there, Badillo erected an unneeded replacement name for that species. I can't imagine how he argued to retain Carica for C. papaya while moving every other species out.Plantdrew (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Carica grow wild?
Talk:Kribi

message: Kribi is part in South of Kamerun. Kribi is one of the most beautiful places, especially abotu beaches.
where does the name kribi come from?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.134.196 (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Talk:MozDex

message: The URL leads to a different "mozdex" site, not about searching general info.Toni Stoev (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong definition of free. a thing 02:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, do you have the correct definition of free? --Siva1979Talk to me 21:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: mozdex has 3.5 million pages indexed as per a simple search performed. Simply go to mozdex page, type 'http://' in the search box to verify. As number of sites indexed increases, please correct number on wikipedia page.Ginafish 13:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of pages indexed
Talk:Royal Marines Reserve

message: What's wrong with this article for a starter? Sure, it's an official "public affairs" handout, but it's good basic information. Yeah, it needs references and maybe some more historical connections, etc., but it's a start. --TGC55 14:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's Wrong? 

message: OK - I've done some minor work on this article but there is little doubt that section 3 and possibly 4 & 5 needs some work.  When I get a chance I will try but it would be useful if someone was around who had actual experience of RMR in case I (who know nothing about it!) make any silly mistakes?  If you can help get back to me here or on my talkpage, I'll catch either.  -- Nigel  (Talk) 10:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made a bit of a start! 

message: There appears to be nothing on a web or book search titled Official History of the Royal Marines Reserve, can the anon ip editor supply more details, ISBN or OCLC numbers or a web address.Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official History of the Royal Marines Reserve 

message: As you can see i have significantly changed the page. I have removed as much biased content as i can, added new sources and restructured the article (as lot of parts were repeated or broken). I have fixed links and tried to find some more pictures, although copyright as always poses an issue. Please feel free to edit and contribute, especially in finding sources for the 'history' section. I shall nominate this page for a c/b class verification in the future, as mentioned earlier on this page, it deserves a higher classification. Thanks --Tacita620 (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change
Portal talk:Current events/January 2006

message: #Support:This article should definitely be merged into January 2006 for consistency with other dates. Ck lostsword 15:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I have just completed a major reorganisation for consistency with March 2006 and February 2006. More work still needs doing on January 2002->December 2005. (See Talk:March 2006) Ck lostsword|queta! 09:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! It's strange, though, that we have nothing for January 14. Even after looking through the page history there was only ever one event (the death of the emir of Kuwait, Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah) but that was moved to January 15 as it ended up being the true date of his passing. GT 23:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-organisation

message: This article should mention the dramatic rise in the popularity of anal fisting. ref:   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.12.169 (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anal Fisting
Talk:KY-68

message: Please delete - new article that does not in any way infringe on copyrights has been uploaded to the /temp page.
I was not aware that there was an issue with the original copyright holder, until i saw the note in his entry on the cryptography project page.
Roidhun 15:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I've moved it to the main page, and deleted the old one. We could do with rewording it to avoid some of the military jargon, though, so that mere mortals can understand it :) — Matt Crypto 17:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Done a bit, but will be glad if somebody else will take a look ;) Roidhun 04:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: seems to make sense, lots of links, what's the problem? Chrismorey (talk) 08:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: I moved the external link pointing to "The Wayne Madsen Report" site here. The link is * The demise of global communications security (contains the story of the KY-78 compromise) here. After reading the link, I am unsure that it is credible. It's an essay that makes a number of strong claims, but does not support them or provide links. It doesn't feel like a good candidate for an external link for an encyclopedia article. I've moved it here to start a discussion. I'd like to hear what others think. --Zippy 09:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wayne Madsen report

message: I cleaned up some of the military jargon, and re-worked alot of the grammatical structure. Can someone review it for clarity, to see if the Confusing|date=December 2006 marking can be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.47.111 (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What does TSEC mean? 70.251.33.92 (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military Jargon -> English
Talk:Heritability

message: User:Everymorning has added not just 1, but 3 recent edits basically repeating the same theme: when GxE interactions are present, interpretation of results from e.g. classical twin design is difficult. Now, everybody working in the field already knows this. Perhaps he can explain his vision for how he wants this point to be communicated in the page. Right now looks to me like he wants to insert it multiple places in the article using different references and slightly different wordings. That doesn't seem like an optimal approach. Why not mainstream textbooks or reviews as sources? This edit is particularly problematic as the cited source is wildly out of date (1990) and is by some seemingly randomly chosen critic (Wahlsten). This edit is problematic as it inserts an extreme minority view as being recognized fact in the page. General opinion in the field is that while large GxE interactions will cause trouble for interpretation, generally tests have failed to identify such large interactions. Plomin et al (2012) discusses GxE in chapter 8, p. 118ff. Their summary of research does not give the picture Wahlsten prefers, rather, they cite a lot of research done GxE done using traditional pedigree designs including twins and adoptees. Some of the research cited has since fallen prey to the replication crisis or later meta-analysis (e.g. the Morfitt GxE finding), but I don't have a copy of the latest version (2016, 7th ed.) of the textbook to see how it changed. Plomin et al does mention that many studies of candidate variant/gene GxE failed to replicate. Deleet (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *What is also very important to keep in mind here is that estimates of heritability are based on the assumption that genes and environment exert separable effects on phenotypes, but that is not true: their effects are entangled and inseparable. This recent review article seems an excellent source. Here is a relevant quote from it: "...there are no ‘genes for’ quantitative (i.e., non-discrete) phenotypes, such as common obesity and metabolic diseases (e.g., T2DM). As such, estimates of genetic heritability are misused and often meaningless statistical abstractions derived from attempts to impose an artificial and false dichotomy (i.e., nature vs. nurture) on demonstrably non-dichotomous biologic processes." IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk  02:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prominence given to GxE interaction assumption and violation results 

message: Polderman et al. (2015): Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3285
I'd guess this should be cited.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.153.43 (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies
Talk:Varkey Vithayathil

message: Isnt it Cardinal Varkey Vithayathil? thunderboltz 15:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either Cardinal Varkey Vithayathil or Varkey Cardinal Vithayathil is accecptable.  Wikipedia's naming conventions specify the Cardinal to be placed before the surname, for consistency in article titles. Gentgeen 03:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Varkey Cardinal Vithayathil?
Talk:Proceedings of the Royal Society

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 09:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article includes some sections of text from the following non-free source  and this one  Pol430 talk to me 09:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright concerns 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources.  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications 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, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed