Talk:Kalos kagathos

message: I am new to Wikipedia but I have taken the time to familiarize myself with it before jumping into the fray. This is my first 'edit' and 'talk'.
I have reservations about the article "Kalos Kagathos". To me it looks as if the original article was written by someone who took large segements of the article directly from some other source. I do not know how kosher this practice is on Wikipedia but it worries me. The original article included references to page numbers in some edition of the original source but subsequent edits removed those. I fear that this will morph into something approaching plagiarism. --Emeriste 22:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism? 

message: I found this article difficult to read and confusing. I think this is because of the way this article is (apparently) a sequence of quotations lifted from another source. I believe the article should probably be re-written almost entirely. I am new here, however, and so I did not feel at liberty to carry out such a program without discussing it with others.
Problems with the organization of the article include (in my opinion):
(1) It is not clear if kalokagathos is a noun, an adjective, or both. It seems to be used in various places of the article in both ways but it is not clear which. 
(2) The frequent comparisons to "Christian England" are not very helpful and out of place. They may have made more sense in the original source that this article was lifted from, but here they lack context and seem forced and superfluous.
(3) The bit at the end about Thersites seems likewise unnecessary, though it might have some place in an improved and revised article about kalokagathos.
--Emeriste 22:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style Problems 

message: Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles[31] without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Not only that, but the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by you to those of the GFDL license.[32][33] 
I started this article.  I did many edits on it.  The page history has been changed and the talk page as well to delete my stuff off!!! This is in direct violation.WHEELER 01:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading Comprehension User:Pmanderson.  Reading Comprehension.  I do care that my stuff has been totally deleted from this page but that is NOT the concern here, Mr. Pmanderson.  Please read that above paragraph really really closely---The History and Talk page histories have been EXPUNGED!  I started the article---I ought to go back to the "earliest" and first page to see my created article.  GFDL license REQUIRES the History of the page---That has been altered------AND SO, this article is in violation! of the GFDL license----User:Pmanderson, Please read before you comment, Please!WHEELER 23:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This Article is in Violation of the GFDL license

message: Read the context that there that there was a greek king or general named Gaskolgus 24.191.71.193 (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sotah Page 33a