lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Phase-type distribution

message: This Phase-type distribution article is in serious need of  revision, or perhaps even reversion, or both! It currently sounds like it has being copied from a text book or an original work. Earlier versions are somewhat more readable. Perhaps it has been over-constructed. -- Cameron Dewe 10:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

message: Is the "constant" distribution really a special case?  If so, the definition needs to be changed.  The limiting distribution requires an infinite-dimensional matrix (m=\infty), but then the absorbing state can't be state \infty+1.  It should be state 1.
It would be much easier to say that the constant distribution is not phase-type.  (Note that all distributions are the limit of phase type distributions, and so this might server as a useful conter-example, rather than an example. LachlanA (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy fix. 129.127.252.4 (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limit vs special case 

message: In the box the formula stated for the variance seems to be instead the formula for the mean square.
Also much of the article aims to address the case where \alpha_{m+1} is not necessarily zero, but in that case surely the p.d.f. needs to have \alpha_{m+1}\delta(x) adding to it, both in the box and in the main text.Fathead99 (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things to check
Talk:Maria Borelius

message: I have removed material from  that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Material in a biography must always be referenced from reliable sources, particularly negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.
Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Oden 04:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by [[User:Skalle]]
Talk:Doug Shanahan

message: :See deletion log. Daniel (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted history
Talk:Freaks & Greeks (Drawn Together)

message: Jun-Jee says that he plans to use his money to go up in a spaceship. This is a reference to Lance Bass of 'N Sync, who attempted to use his money and celebrity status to become a cosmonaut
... could also be a reference to any other space tourist, or did I miss something? --Abdull 10:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. What makes the Lance Bass case more relevant than all the other space tourists who actually did go to space? Gdo01 10:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The Bass case received significantly more publicity than the others. But the note could be reworded to refer to space tourism in general.Raymondluxuryacht 10:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

message: Does anyone have a picture of when Toot and Jun-Jee kiss? (the first time). 67.41.213.180 14:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kiss
Talk:Rice riots of 1918

message: Editors should be aware that there is misinformation running around the internet that the 1921 Rice Act had something to do with deadly fungus, public health or storing cooked rice. That misinformation is part of the reason that I created the section (and a redirect to here), also explains this edit , and may predict further edits.
The act itself, and the actual developing history of market controls post-1921 may well deserve an expanded article of its own, whenever anyone feels up for it. — HTGS (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the Rice Law, 1921
Talk:Layman Pang

message: What calendar are the dates in the article given in? Obviously not BC/BCE, else his death occurred before his birth. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 12:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Calender

message: I don't know, but the guy's name, it seems, is not Layman. Should this article be moved to Páng Jūshì or Páng Yùn? (without the stuff on top of the vocals, perhaps?)Feureau 14:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Páng Jūshì is the most common name that this figure is known by in China and Chinese (as well as Japanese texts). The common translation for his name with English translators, then, is "Layman Pang" ("Layman" being a literal translation of "Jūshì"). That said, I think that more common English-language (as well as Wikipedia) standards of organization would put him under "Pang Yun"--Pang having been his surname and Yun being his given name. LinLang 16:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jushi is the Chinese translation used for the Sanskrit Upasaka. So technically it means "Buddhist Layman" but that seems too cumbersome in translation. Since he is already very well known in English speaking Buddhis circles as "Layman Pang" I see no good reason to translate Pang Jushi any differently or not use it as the heading. I think the reference to the name "Pang Yun" should be in the body of the article. Gregory Wonderwheel (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  article title: move it?
Talk:Canfield's Diet Chocolate Fudge

message: I restored this article, which was redirected, because source searches demonstrate notability. As a 1970s product, additional print sources are very likely available that are not available in internet searches. North America1000 00:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Article restored

message: I have removed the following content from the article, because I am not finding sources to verify it. North America1000 01:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed content
Talk:JLGB

message: WOuld like to know how this is related to Scouting movement. But, put the project tag on for now. Rlevse 10:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: rm tag.Rlevse 12:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ?
Talk:Linear phase

message: Contrary to what the article current implies, a symmetrical impulse response is not a necessary condition for a discrete-time FIR to be phase-linear (it is merely a sufficient condition).  It isn't hard to come up with an example which is asymmetrical, yet linear-phase nonetheless.
However, in the case of continuous-time FIRs (which don't exist in the real world), symmetry is a necessary condition for linear-phase.
Oli Filth 09:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linear phase <math>\nRightarrow</math> symmetrical impulse response
Talk:Cryogenic Dark Matter Search

message: Could the article explain why Silicon detectors are used as well as the Germanium ones ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why both Ge and Si detectors  
Talk:Salvation Army Boys Adventure Corps

message: I do not understand this article. The first sentence says it is a UK organisation, but the rest of the article is about America? Could someone clarify? Could someone also add the correct categories. --Bduke 13:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two different organization; but the text was a copyvio. --jergen 12:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ?
Talk:Work (electric field)

message: Sorry I did not get around to it before this business of re-naming etc.
I can see no purpose/point in separating "a special" work done by electric force (electric field) from the work done by any force, which is or should be described in the Work (physics) article. The "electrical" article does not demonstrate any special features of electrical work (not that there are any), but it does introduce a number of erroneous statements.
The work done (or work that can be done) by electric field is a basis for explaining the concept of voltage, and there are very good reasons to discuss all details right there, in the Voltage article. So, if any editors feel that Wikipedia must have a separate entry "Work (electrical)", the only sensible approach would be to re-direct it to "Voltage".
I have already discussed some problems of the Voltage article at its talk page. Some of that nonsense is reproduced and amplified here, such as "positive external work to move a positive charge into a region possessing a higher value of voltage" (the author has obviously confused voltage for potential). But here we can find some additional and entirely incomprehensible nonsenses such as "positive and negative regions of field" (can anybody guess what that might mean for a vector field?).
Finally, in the closing paragraphs, the author claims "The electric work which is done by an electric field is independent of the path followed by the carriers of charge. There is no change in the voltage around any closed path...". He is fully unaware of the only challenging task, that of explaining the concept of path-dependent voltage...
I find it difficult to understand why anybody would spend time and effort discussing/re-naming/manipulating the article without noticing the trash quality of its content. And as for the purpose of its existence as an entry separated from the Voltage article, I hope that above illustrations (nonsense as they are) convincingly demonstrate that such separation is pointless.--Ilevanat (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a pointless and incorrectly written article 

message: From about 5 minutes in Walter Lewin excellently explains Work in terms of electricity: could anyone with the expertise add this to this page?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsWDUqJQcpk&feature=bf_prev&list=SPC2CEECFD938FD494  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.204.0.223 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone add http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsWDUqJQcpk&feature=bf_prev&list=SPC2CEECFD938FD494  ! 

message: Reading through this article, I find a few things that are just wrong. Someone who knows more on this subject should definitely take a look at this... GoldMiner24 Talk 08:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for using this Talk page to alert interested Users to the problem you have found - that "a few things are just wrong." Seeing you have noticed a few things you think are wrong, it is customary to let readers know what they are, or where they are, or what you think is the problem. Dolphin (t) 11:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability
Talk:Geometrical frustration

message: Please seehere for what I propose! Chris 21:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganisation 

message: This page seems to have a great deal of overlap with Geometrically frustrated magnet, so maybe they should be merged.  I would suggest that that article be merged into this one, to cover the general topic geometrical frustration, but I am not an expert in this field.  Comments? --ChetvornoTALK 18:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge done by User:Suz115.  Thanks, great job. --ChetvornoTALK 20:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Geometrically frustrated magnet]]?

message: Just a note to mention figures 7 and 8 are absent. Feel free to clean this note.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.147.8 (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing figures

message: Reinstated the version from 02:52, 15 November 2008‎ (and added title) -- rationale explained in edit summary. Seattle Jörg (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial geometrically frustrated ferromagnets 

message: frustrated triangular lattice, content was

Geometrical frustration occurs when a set of degrees of freedom is incompatible with the space it occupies.
A purely geometric example of this is the impossibility of close-packing pentagons in two dimensions. Another is atomic magnetic moments with antiferromagnetic interactions. These moments lower their interaction energy by pointing antiparallel to their neighbors.
In the case of two dimensional space, the triangular lattice is the simplest example of such frustration. With a triangular lattice, the two spins can easily accommodate two sides, but the third spin is frustrated. If this third spin is up, then two arrangements out of the three are compatible, but one is incompatible. This leads to a huge degeneracy in the ground state with non-zero entropy. This frustration leads to breaking symmetry, which leads to ferroelectricity.
==Sources==
*Geometrically Frustrated Matter—Magnets to Molecules : A.P. Ramirez MRS BULLETIN • VOLUME 30 • JUNE 2005
*Geometrical Frustration : Roderich Moessner and A.P. Ramirez, February 2006, Physics Today
Category:Concepts in physics

 Arlo James Barnes 08:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another merge
Talk:Frequency range

message: Am I the only one bothered by " A frequency range is a range of frequencies." ? This is the greatest sentence to appear on Wikipedia since  The history of Stoke City F.C., an English association football club based in Stoke-on-Trent, covers the years from the club's formation to the present day., which appeared on the front page as part of a featured article (October 16, 2008). --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Brilliant prose
Talk:Contorsion tensor

message: Added a note about the sign of the contorsion tensor, which is reversed due to using the opposite sign for the torsion tensor as is usual when using the convention \nabla_{i}v^{j} = \partial_{i}v^{j} + {\Gamma^{j}}_{ki} v^{k} for the lower index ordering of the connection coefficients. Adam Marsh (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Double-thanks, it wasn't till I was lying in bed that I realized which sign you were referring to! Oh, but wait, huh, looking at the edit history, I see that recent edits, just a few months ago, changed around the signs and the order of the indexes. ... and introduced an extra minus sign into the works. Which was not propagated into all sections of the article. So there are clearly several conventions floating about, for signs and for indexes. Harrumph. Whoever invented signs should be shot. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Sign convention
Talk:One-piece swimsuit

message: Can anyone find external links for this article which are not either swimsuit shops or fetish sites? There must be serious fashion websites and literature devoted this topic, since making and selling swimsuits is a substantial part of the fashion business, with many couture houses presenting swimsuits as part of their collections, but they appear to be drowned out by commercial links on Google searches. -- The Anome 11:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Mysore Dasara

message: The Dasara celebrated in mYsore is very different from the Dasara festival celebrated else where for example in Bengal, i would keep it has seperate.--Ganesha1 11:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mysore Dasara 
Talk:Leptogenesis

message: I'm not a physicist, but the page states It should be understood however that it is not possible to create only electrons (or only protons) without violating the conservation of the electric charge. In other words, the conservation of the electric charge requires an equal number of electrons and protons. However, I'm not aware of any such requirement. Do they mean electrons and positrons? 65.191.115.91 (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright I gave it a shot. How about it?Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Has to be same number of electrons as protons? O rly?

message: I think the "physics" indication in the title is abundant. Are there any definitions of leptogenesis in other field? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Hhthoj (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See Leptogenesis.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad. Haven't checked that out. Hhthoj (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dropping "physics" in title
Talk:Anthony Brooke

message: I came here because, reading the article, I saw that the statements to the effect that Mr. Anthony Brooke has the title "Rajah of Sarawak" make no sense and wanted to note that on this talk page. When Rajah Vyner ceded Sarawak to the British Crown, as was his sovereign right, the title effectively ceased to exist, so it could not have passed to someone else upon his death. Now sometimes there are pretenders who cannot accept that a title ceases to exist, but in this case the one-time designated successor had already renounced all claims in 1951, prior to Vyner's death in 1963. So if there is a title "in pretence", it is solely the pretence of the editor who put in this title in this article.  --Lambiam 09:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title claim makes no sense 
Talk:Fill factor

message: What are typical values for the fill-factor?
Between 0,5 & 0,9
What is optimal value of the fill factor?
1 (theoretical)
dima 09:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  value of the fill factor? 

message: The Fraunhofer ISE has showed an organic photovoltaic cell featuring a record fill factor of 64 %. --Hamiltha (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highlights 

message: Expert people are very familiar with some terms. But it is necessary include links or definitions to some concepts to make the article more easy for the general public:
* What are Grade B cells? . --Hamiltha (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grade B cells and other defintions

message: Fill factor is also affected by the contact resistance (series) and the leakage resistance (parallel). Sticking an equivalent circuit in and deriving the results would be helpful. I will do this later... I have an exam on this to study for right now... I should be able to get my hands on some reference material too.  Th5th (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parasitic Resistances
Talk:Faraday cup

message: Unclear why that should be a separate article, doesn't mention plasma diagnostics. — HHHIPPO 20:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - Wikify and merge with Faraday cup. --Kkmurray (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Faraday cup in plasma diagnostics]] 

message: Evgeny E. V. Shun'ko (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redirected it. Jamesx12345 22:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: I agree and I merged it according your suggestion

message: There's a template saying this is too hard for a reader to understand, and I have to agree. But I just spent an hour figuring it out, so I'll try to write a more straightforward description. I think the big problem is that the basic Faraday cup described at the top of the article is much simpler than the "in practice" one being described at the bottom of the article. Probably because they were originally separate articles. The one at the bottom of the article also allows measuring velocity distribution, which the basic one at the top doesn't. I may also have to edit the formulas to make them agree on notation and rewrite the density term in terms of ion mass and numerical density, since that is much easier to follow for the physics here. I would appreciate someone checking my math if they have time. Anuran (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increasing Readability
Talk:Cryoscopic constant

message: Why is it not - \triangle T?  --LakeHMM 05:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  -ΔT? 

message: Please notice, that in Physical Chemistry the ratio of amount of substance (amount ratio) shall be used instead of the molality, according to the SI. It is not a hard thing. You can calculte it knowing the molar mass of the solvent (e.g water). 
If you agree I'll make an addendum for this unit.   ZJ (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phyisical Chemistry
Talk:Atomic coherence

message: I reverted an edit that described atomic coherence as if it were something a single atom can have: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomic_coherence&diff=prev&oldid=1184041472
I don't believe it is correct. The paragraph cited no sources.
I know of two kinds of "atomic coherence" which are systems of atoms with phase relationship among their states. One system consists of atom with similar transverse momentum used in eg double slit diffraction. The other system consists of atoms excited simultaneously to the same excited level vs a coherent laser. I believe the addition was referring to the latter form. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that nuclear spin states of atoms is third system of atomic coherence: Barnes, Katrina, et al. "Assembly and coherent control of a register of nuclear spin qubits." Nature Communications 13.1 (2022): 2779. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of atomic coherence. 

message: @Royaready I see you are trying to improve this article. Here is a suggestion: please build up the article, then summarize it. The intro should be a summary see WP:LEAD. Otherwise as time goes on the intro is just a really long disorganized article. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Johnjbarton thanks, will do. I think the summary just needed a little more context. Cheers, Royaready (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Building up the body of the article before the intro.
Talk:Explicit symmetry breaking

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/927/1/SymmBreaking.pdf. 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.  Dpmuk (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed