Wikipedia talk:Please clarify

	This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles
High	This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (2007–2013)

Is Clarification Needed?

What if you want to dispute that clarification is needed at all? Alexandergreenb (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you open a discussion about it on the talk page. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Clarify' page doesn't clarify anything. All it is is a bunch of bafflegab about itself. All I wanted was to clarify the word the clarification notice was next to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.82.81 (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes clarification is always needed. Just look at the added subjects in our room of subjects. They have brought birth to this subject. Thanks King trapp (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Fire Department Is that clarification? King trapp (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk more but give me money Merlin0147 (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hover text - give the notes to the reader

It might seem silly, but wouldn't it be better if, when hovered over, the popup actually gives the text of any reason- text in the cl notice?

It would be a lot easier for the reader to understand what clarification is required, and so understand any issues/problems/reasons that an editor has asked for?? Chaosdruid (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this would be very helpful. Readers would have some idea of what the editor found unclear, and editors would have a better idea if they could clarify if they knew what was unclear. It saves the time and hassle of opening an edit window, which may just reveal that there is no message anyway, which is a waste of editor time. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eckankar beliefs:

Beliefs Edit One of the basic tenets is that Soul (the true self) may be experienced separate from the physical body and in full consciousness travel freely in "other planes of reality "[further explanation needed]. That would also be known as an OBE, "out of body expeirence"

Eckankar emphasizes personal spiritual experiences as the most natural way back to God.[19] These are attained via Soul Travel shifting the awareness from the body to the inner planes of existence.[11]:187 Snowwkatt (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book of Kells does not mention her lover . Why ?

Find out who in the book of Kells who was her one and only hero lover 96.43.51.39 (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good thanks. Herostratus (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relacionado ao tempo/prazo relativos às informações relacionados à investigação, processo ou pessoa, em casos considerados sigilosos, são divididos em 3 classificações de importância: Ultrassecreto (25 anos), Secreto (15 anos) e Reservada (5). No que tange às pessoas, a intimidade, vida privada, honra e imagem; o prazo é de até 100 anos.

Just adding a note. Based on the Law 12.527/11 2804:14D:5C9E:9CAE:14BA:A12:93F0:25DC (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categories, Functors. And Natural Transformations

If one would like me to excerpt from my Theorem 3.0 in my COVID-delayed publication to be “Chalmers %Et Al Place% and His School of Cognitive-Behavioral Whiskeribg Are sub queries of all Unsatisfiabe Queries, under the Hard Problem of Consciousness his exposition presents.”

It is written to settle a very simple way to answer why permitting a doublet mapping space that can be Monadic indexed is for doublets through m=(s(M),t(M)) over Lawvere object (all of the stuff is folklore since Gödel as all undecidables involve the Poset problem on countable (per some orthogonal calculus like (C:Category ,(c):object, limit<___{(f:s(f)—->t(f))}.f:arrow, •:Bilinearmap{composition of unitality and associates upon components right to left being natural equivalent to source and target types. If there is interest in a rigorous proof I will release it congruent with my publishing body’s permission and modifications if wanted.

One can create ,after the proof that meta-meta-phenomenal experiences to a singleton (basic two ways of doing two things coupled and bundled as such - known in “Z doesn’t admit but the trivial embedding to R where 1=0 and thus there is one partial order, elementary inclusion, never fulfillable unlike since filtrative PowerSet, per cantor 1870, a lemma called “Rudy’s Lemma: (When language or a cable news pundit demands a subobject classified image onto 2:=[ {T,F} ]which he ,the NY former mayor utilizes during his attorney-role for the impeachment of President Trump (the second one) defending the possible insurrection behavior instigated by the old president, he frighteningly says “…..you and I know… Truth isn’t Truth.” 2601:404:CC00:3300:D05C:1094:66D3:B186 (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some things cannot be clarified, as clarification basically requires that there is some rational meaning intended, which is accessible. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]