lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Wikipedia talk:Why aren't these pages copy-edited

message: I removed everything because it was rubbish and none of the posts were signed!
Brianjd 03:09, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
What was rubbish?
There are several complaints about the new system - which is not user friendly. The old system was quick and easy to use - the present is not. Like others ##I do not have the time## to go through all the various lists looking for what corrections are necessary.
When a date system (or some sort of "recent updates" which are then sent to the various groupings is restored I will spend more time with Wikipedia. Until then I (and possibly other Wikipedians) will be less involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.6.26  (talk • contribs) 13:39, 20 January 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After taking some time trying to work out what you were actually complaining about and respond, I realised that you have simply posted to the wrong page: you are referring, I presume, to a reorganisation of either Wikipedia:Cleanup or Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. In which case, your comments should be directed to the discussion pages attached to those, not here, where few of the people involved are likely to see them. - IMSoP 16:31, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I really don't think this page is going to gain you any attention. It's not in any way attached to the page you're trying to discuss, and it probably has far less people "watching" it than just about any page out there. If you really think your comments need a wider audience than they're getting, try the Wikipedia:Village pump. - IMSoP 14:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Then why are you looking at this page? Try Wiki, Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:FAQ, Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers, Help:Contents or if all else fails ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk! - IMSoP 14:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Just trying to tidy up the Wikipedia namespace; we currently have Wikipedia:Copyediting, Wikipedia:How to copy-edit, and this page.  Would it be OK to merge them all into the How-to article? I like the question in the title of this page and the answer it presents, and I think it would make a good intro to the how-to.  The third page seems completely redundant. -- Beland 03:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Provided you remove the dash (i.e., copyedit, not copy-edit) - SoM 22:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger?
Talk:Charles Lane Poor

message: * In 1919, after the war had ended, scientific expeditions were sent to Sobral in South America  and Principe in West Africa to make observations of the solar eclipse. (Was the specific location of Principe chosen for its name, as a subliminal tribute to Newton’s Principia?) The reported results were angular deflections of 1.98 ± 0.16 and 1.61 ± 0.40 seconds of arc, respectively, which was taken as clear confirmation of general relativity's prediction of 1.75 seconds of arc.
I wonder what objection CL Poor made about general relativity. Is there anything published we can look at?
Were his objections more theoretical, or more experimental? Did he agree that general relativity, if true, should result in light bending by 1.75 seconds of arc? If so, was his quibble with the accuracy of the Sobral observations?
Did he ever modify or discard his objections? If so, why? Did better, more reliable observations convince him, or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Try this DiEb (talk) 09:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: General relativity and light bending
Talk:Assassination

message: How can assassination be described as "people calling it an extra-judicial killing that lacks due process". Assassination is by any definition illegal, it isn't exactly an extreme interpretation to describe it as "extra-judiacial", in fact that is a euphemism.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: "or military motives": This should be removed, because it is not correct as it is against international law (perfidy):
“”
IHL by ICRC [ Rule 65. Killing, injuring or capturing an adversary by resort to perfidy is prohibited]
The examples such as given in the section "As military and foreign policy doctrine" are either not military but political: assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, and Vietnam on both sides). In the case of Isoroku Yamamoto and Rommel killing enemy military commanders who is in arms, by members of the armed forces, and not paid assassins, is not assassination: Richard III was not assassinated at the Battle of Bosworth.
I suggest that "or military motives" is removed. -- PBS (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "or military motives" 

message: Shouldn't there be info on the legality, laws or treaties regarding assassinations by governments? Hammerfrog (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laws
Talk:Maryland Toleration Act

message: Whatever has been put for the long s prints as a question mark. Should one just put a regular "s" instead?
---- 
Why is this here?  shouldn't there be context somewhere? JHK
----
I think the context is supposed to be that this Act only tolerated Christian churches, and made it illegal and punishable by death not to worship Jesus. I added something about that in the article.
The founder of Maryland was Catholic and used Maryland as a haven for Catholics who were experiencing persecution in England. To keep Maryland safe for the Catholic Church the Toleration Act was written. Establishing, in a sense, a state religion. 
-CP
:This is like saying that the Declaration of Independence was meaningless because there was still slavery. It was an extremely important document even though much improvement was needed in the Colonies and early United States in order to fully realize its ideas. To dismiss it's importance is to reject any progress unless absolute perfection is instantly realized.2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: s

message: Shouldn't this article have inline citations, instead of notes and a bibliography?Mario777Zelda (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 
Talk:DARPA TIDES program

message: Article was copied, word for word nearly, from DARPA website -- I assume there's no permissions problem?
From the site: "The DARPA ITO Web Site is provided as a public service by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency".  That would seem to make it pretty clear that it's a government work, and therefore ineligible for copyright.  --LDC
::it still is plagiarism (unless DARPA actually wrote this wikipedia article... but then, it still has the appearance of plagiarism) and bad manners. the author could instead use a lot of block quoting and paraphrasing, and it would be much nicer in my humble opinion.
::It should at least be converted to past tense, since it is no longer active.Mcswell (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled
Talk:Ark

message: >Noah's Ark, a massive vessel Noah built at God's command to keep Noah, his family, and a core breeding stock of the world’s animals safe.
...and Eldorado is the city made of pure gold. Except that neither exist! It is stupid to pretend that the ark is real, a vessel large enough tohold specimen of all animal races of the earth would be impossibly large to engineer even today, and so the above quoted sentence as a statement is misleading. 195.70.32.136 10:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant bias from Sunday Schools!
Talk:Catiline

message: The existing talk page (which was a total mess; it is actually impossible to follow any of the, now long-outdated, personal attacks made there to find any point, if any, that was being made) was removed to Talk:Catiline/Archive 1. As to the existing article, it relies too heavily on primary sources; a rewrite may be necessary. It is not as if we don't have decent books on the Catilinarian conspiracy, its characters, etc. Eg DH Berry, Cicero's Catilinarians (2020) and others. Ifly6 (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewrite was completed. Ifly6 (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archival and general comments 

message: A number of problems in the ancestral description. They are now relatively easy to discover due to DPRR's existence:
* The cited person, one Gnaeus Sergius Fidenas Coxo, as having been a consular ancestor in 380, is untrue. DPRR reports he was consular tribune. The difference is meaningful. See eg Drogula, Commanders and Command (UNC Press, 2015) on the early republic. The only Sergius elected to the consulship (ever), according at least to the fasti (the veracity of which also is questioned), was L Sergius Fidenas, the consul of 437 and 429.
* Nowhere in Sallust, the cited source, is Cn Sergius Fidenas Coxo noted as a consular ancestor to this Sergius. They are clansmen; but, by analogy, that Servius Tullius is a Tullius does not mean he is Cicero's forefather. (Not my joke. Cicero made this joke two thousand years ago.) We also cannot impute descent merely from the fact both were patricians. Even in the former Sergius' time, there could have been multiple branches of Sergii.
I don't like the idea of citing a website (maybe that's because of some lawyerly training) but the main genealogical text cited in DPRR is Zmeskal 2009, which I don't have a copy of and is regardless in German. It may be useful to consult it. Ifly6 (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a copy online, begrudgingly translated the German, and this was done. Ifly6 (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry
Talk:Starch

message: The etymology section needs to be cleaned up; I'm not even sure what the second sentence is trying to say, or I would simply do it myself. Anyone want to take a stab at it?
Rdviii (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wordsmithing 

message: The word "polymers" is misused in the very first paragraph of the article. A polymer is a substance that consists of long molecules composed of repeating units, each of which is called a monomer. To fix the problem, it is sufficient to remove the phrase "called polymers." Dratman (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word used incorrectly 

message: Should there be a new dedicated chapter for "Artificial synthesis of starch" here?
It's a new science but papers seem to back it up as an actual reality. I think it warrants its own new dedicated section in the article since it doesn't neatly fits in any of the existing sections. And it's significant as it may help solve Climate change, global food shortages by creating starch a lot more efficiently and faster than plants can. https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/science.abh4049https://phys.org/news/2021-09-chinese-scientists-starch-synthesis-carbon.htmlhttp://english.cas.cn/newsroom/cas_media/202109/t20210924_284077.shtml
 Chinese scientists completed the world’s first synthetic starch tech from CO2, its production rate is 8.5 times compared to agricultural production. This tech may solve the food crisis, and mitigate the global warming. The food issue of Martian immigrants will be solved
MangoTareeface9 (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial synthesis of starch 

message: For the record...
The biochemistry of starch degradation is complicated enough that for this overview article, we (IMHO) do not have the capacity to describe organisms missing some of these enzymes.  So, I removed these bits today:
"loss of the GWD, leads to a starch excess (sex) phenotype,  and because starch cannot be phosphorylated, it accumulates in the plastids."
" if mutated (MEX1-mutant) results in maltose accumulation in the plastid.  --Smokefoot (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Mutants
Talk:35 mm movie film

message: Found a mistake with the radius of the hole corner roundings of the Dubray-Howell perforation. It should be 0.013" or 0,33 mm as with the AC type (CS), not 0.02" or 0,5 mm. --Filmtechniker (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: DH perforation
Talk:Xenu

message: Have there been any reports of Xenu's enemies (Scientologists) reverse engineering Nuclear weapons for positive purposes? Such as, a non-radioactive nuclear winter in desert terrain for hydration? Trouble understanding their role in the war that led to the downfall of Xenu.. Twillisjr (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: the question is non-sense; history of Xenu is allegoric 5.77.113.15 (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is allegoric[al]?  Some doubt that.  Zaslav (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear Arsenal 

message: Should there be a warning at the top stating that "if you read this article you may be subject to eternal damnation and death by pneumonia"? Flight Risk (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unless you have an independent reliable source that says so. Grorp (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning? 

message: Revolt in the Stars was not just a film treatment. It was a full screenplay supposedly written by L. Ron Hubbard and a company called A Brilliant Film Company started by Scientologists, husband and wife team Randy and Gillian Eaton tried to produce it. They were located in Hollywood in the Crossroads of the World complex. The initial funding came from Becky, Bobby, and Cooper Rounds, grandkids of Gaily Coleman of the Coleman lantern fortune. The script featured illustrations with emperor Xenu looking like a dead-ringer for Ming the Merciless of the Flash Gordon movies. If the film had ever been made, L. Ron Hubbard would have per contract received $666,000 on first day of principal photography. I'm the writer Skip Press. I've never tried to create a Wikipedia page for myself or edit one, so would appreciate your assistance. Lloydpress (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This info is already covered at .    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  17:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2024
Talk:Tiger Woods

message: :
According to Astro-Databank, he was born in Long Beach. And according to California Birth Index, he was born in Los Angeles County. So that means that Long Beach is in Los Angeles County and Cypress is in Orange County. He was definitely born in Long Beach. Arieledits2000 (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll need to provide some good sources for your claims.  says "BIRTHPLACE Cypress, CA"  says "Cypress, California, USA" and many other sources agree. Wikipedia is interested in WP:Verifiability, not truth and generally we prefer secondary sources to primary ones. Nigej (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of birth 

message: Should be added that he is one of the 4 athlete billionaires (along with LeBron James, Michael Jordan, and Magic Johnson), according to Forbes.com (). 65.88.88.56 (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Billionaire status 

message: The information needs to be refined in Tiger’s main wiki page because the implication is that he was playing a full length 9 hole golf course. Cruiser Course description is available on Navy Golf Course, Cypress CA website. 2600:1700:BA0:9B00:7054:FB50:C9D9:98E1 (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiger shot a 48 on the par 31 Navy Course-Cruiser at age three.
Talk:Maoism

message: — Assignment last updated by Tjohns35 (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: History of Socialism

message: The following is the last paragraph under the 'International Influence' section:
"Another effort at regrouping the international communist movement is the International Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organisations (ICMLPO). Three notable parties participating in the ICMLPO are the Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany (MLPD), the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), and Marxist–Leninist Communist Organization – Proletarian Way. The ICMLPO seeks to unify around Marxism–Leninism, not Maoism. However, some parties and organisations within the ICMLPO identify as Mao Zedong Thought or Maoist."
I think this should be removed as it is not within the article's scope and it is unreferenced. I'm putting this here for discussion first as I wouldn't be surprised if folks disagree. FropFrop (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be deleted. Unsourced and arguably outside the scope. Without sourcing, it's unclear that this sort of material is encyclopedically significant. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph potentially out of article's scope
Talk:Star height problem

message: I suggest merging this with Star height.  Zarboublian (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you will have to merge also the article on generalized star height problem into star height. I think that there is enough material worth including in wikipedia that each topic deserves its own article. And in my opinion, mixing the star height problem and the generalized star height problem in a single article leads to confusion. The problems are superficially similar, but are of a fundamentally different nature.  Hermel (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Are these problems not addressed in the Eggan's theorem and Generalized star height sections of the Star height article?  The generalized star height problem as of this writing contains very little information, so I don't see any problem with merging these three articles.  Howard McCay (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger
Talk:Bodily harm

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot 07:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-11-6 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: Could someone confirm whether the 1803 Act is the original coinage of this expression (or just of the expression grievous bodily harm) or not. Thank you. James500 (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin/Etymology 

message: I have merged the section on psychiatric injury from the article Grievous bodily harm into this article after expanding and redrafting it. I did not think it was desirable to have multiple co-tracts on the subject in that article and in the article assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The following material formerly appeared in the latter article. I will leave it here for the moment just in case I have missed something:James500 (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychiatric injury 

message: I have moved the following material here from Talk:Grievous bodily harm:
====Non-physical injury====
Changed it from suspected shoplifter to the flatmate, since that's what the case write up says R v. Chan Fook, don't know if that case should mention that the victim claims there was actual physical assult (the defense argued against that) and that his face was bruised and battered.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.20.93 (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: More

message: Changed it from suspected shoplifter to the flatmate, since that's what the case write up says R v. Chan Fook, don't know if that case should mention that the victim claims there was actual physical assult (the defense argued against that) and that his face was bruised and battered.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.20.93 (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-physical injury

message: It appears to me that the following passage is an attempt to paraphrase the quotes from Lord Steyn and Hobhouse LJ. that are now in the article. I do not think that what this passage says neccessarily follows from what Lord Steyn said. I am not sure that Lord Steyn's opinion is equal to a virtual certainty, or that he is making this inference from the language of the Act (rather than from the date on which it was passed or some other source). So I have replaced what I can with sourced material and cut the rest. James500 (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The intention of Parliament
Talk:Gospel of Luke

message: The redirect Repent or Perish has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Veverve (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Repent or Perish]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Luke, Gospel of Saint has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Veverve (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Luke, Gospel of Saint]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Luke, Gospel according to has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Veverve (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Luke, Gospel according to]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Ehrman's argument about Luke 3:22 is fringe. It is only attested in one manuscript although also used by some Church Fathers. 
Joseph Fitzmyer argues the passage was changed to the "today I have begotten thee" because of its parallel to Psalm 2:7. Divus303 (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what it actually means. Does it mean "what Luke originally wrote" or does it mean "what was originally spoken"? StAnselm (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehrman argues that later scribes, in accordance with dogmatic theology, changed the reading of Luke 3:22 to "with you I am pleased," and that it originally had a more Adoptionist reading. Divus303 (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he's just flat wrong about "virtually all the earliest witnesses". Yes, delete all the text relying on that reference (i.e. from "An important example". It's not an important example.) StAnselm (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not as WP:FRINGE as you think, see e.g. this. tgeorgescu (talk)  23:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Ehrman 

message: I have reverted some WP:FRINGE edits. Here is why:
See the evidence quoted at User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. The mainstream academic view is that the NT gospels are fundamentally anonymous.
I don't say that conservative evangelicals should not get WP:CITED, but they do not speak for the mainstream academia. Conservative evangelical scholars generally do not write mainstream history about the Bible and Christianity. So, while their views are theology, such views do not amount to history. tgeorgescu (talk)  17:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Reddit is not a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually read tgeorgescu's list of sources instead of dismissing his comment outright. Dimadick (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe
Talk:Queen mother

message: Rajmata [sic] is currently translated in the article as "Mother of the State", with the justification that 'Raj' means 'State'. However, the technical term for state/kingdom is actually 'Rajya'. Furthermore, the actual term for the King (or, rarely, if at all, Queen) Mother is "Rajamata" [IPA: raːdʑɐmaːtaː](note the missing 'a' in the term in the article). This is technically from the same word in Sanskrit, which itself is a Sanskrit compound "राज्ञः माता या सा राजमाता।" (Translation: "She who is the King's mother is the King-mother". The translation here has the appearance of stating the obvious, but it gramatically defines the compound word in terms of the simple words whose place and meaning the compound word takes).
Basically, I think that the translation "Mother of the State" is inaccurate, with the inaccuracy being caused by the inaccurate term 'Raj' [IPA: raːdʑ] inaccurately being confused with 'State' due to lack of accurate Sanskrit transliteration of the word 'Raja' [IPA: raːdʑɐ] in "Rajamata" in the first place. The accurate term is, thus, "Rajamata", and the accurate translation is "King-Mother". Viv73 (talk) 05:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  In re [[Queen_mother#India|"Queen Mother" in India]]