This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 65 | ← | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | → | Archive 75 |
Clicking 'newest articles' on the Main Page now brings me to Recent additions rather than to New pages. Clicking 'Archive' already has this function, so there's now two links doing the same, and none doing what I want it to. Why has this happened? Eixo 22:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was BORING!!!!!
People, the discussion of what [is put in the news] box? I flew there before! but putting the Pirate Bay raid above the Indonesian earthquake with 1000s of dead is not only systemic bias but decadent, taste- and heartless. PLEASE change at least the order. wtf! gbrandt 06:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
What seems strange in this discussion is that no one is objecting to the opening of a train station in Germany among these headlines. Piet 13:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
pirate bays back up and running :)the mpaa must be very very upset lol
It's probably not in good taste to have a major earthquake anywhere but on the top, but apart from that, I say let's keep the systemic bias! Nobody will be affected by the architectural marvels of a train station, while the effects of insane copyright regulation and freedom-of-information issues might be felt for generations after we are gone. Also, I don't see how a guy running amok is "important". It's disgusting and obviously strangely fascinating to some people, but surely not of any consequence to me or 99,9% of the world's population... Now please flame me. Mstroeck 15:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Very Anglo-Saxon centered today and not very interesting IMHO. Charles de Gaulle and the Three Gorges Dam could have given some balance. Piet 10:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose "races" be quotemarked. Without the quotations, it implies support for the concept of multiple races. In my opinion, as the sentence begins with "under apartheid", using quotes would convey that that was the term employed by the regime of South Africa. "Ethnic groups" would be preferable, though, as it arguably avoids any POV. SoLando ( Talk) 11:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You are probably in favor of affirmative action though, which I find hilarious. I'm just playing the odds. Haizum 22:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Who writes the main page?
"An earthquake on the island of Java, Indonesia (location pictured) kills at least 6,200 people"
The front page write-up on the apartheid beach table is really disgusting, it conveys apartheid is borderline normal or something like that. In fact apartheid has been classified in mandatory UN resolutions as evil and inherently criminal under international jurisdiction, which even wikipedia cannot ignore, since UN general assembly resolutions are delivered in the name of the entire mankind. Therefore apartheid must not be portrayed as "petty" or insignificant. Especially in the light of South Africa's planned negrocide in the Angola invasion (which was stopped only by cuban soldiers landing) and its amassing of atomic bombs for the purpose (with no little help from Dimona), we must say apartheid was en par with the Hitler's Third Reich.
I understand how the west and zionists want to suppress and lessen criticism and condemnation of apartheid regime, since USA and Israel were the main open and clandestine military backers of South Africa during the period of international sanctions, claiming anti-communism supercedes racial opression. Yet, if wikipedia emulates that, than wikipedia is no more than a cold-war propaganda megaphone. 195.70.32.136 15:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
In contrast to DYK requirements, USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle B in DYK has no hook, is longish and full of technicalities. As a result of its inclusion, the template is too long and looks disproportionate. Please consider removal. -- Ghirla -трёп- 16:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The link in the Did you know boxe should link to newest article and not recent additions. Something should be done. Moonray 20:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I know the image on the Main Page for Transhumanism looks really nice, but it's a fair-use image. Is there a free image that could replace it? joturn e r 00:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I was looking at the main page and clicked the link to the featured atricle on
Transhumanism but all that appears is a short stub on the subject. The article still appears in full as the latest version in the history but just not under the article tab. Has anyone else encountered this? Appears to have been corrected.
See the discussion here: WP:VPR#Date on Main page.
What do you think of this for incorporating the date on the main page? — M e ts501 talk 05:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
One reason I thought that the date and time (UTC) would be a good idea was because sometimes it's confusing to users to see an "On this day..." box for what would be the next day in their time zone. — M e ts501 talk 20:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it Shavuot today? Might as well put that down seeing as there are no holidays or anything currently mentioned. Horses In The Sky talk contributions
Does anyone think it would be a good idea to place a clear portal to the Simple English Wikipedia on the main page, allowing fast access to a simplified version of the encyclopedia? User:Micheal Dart/Signature
Hmm. I thought Queen Elizabeth II was crowned. I have never seen the form coronated, which would imply the existence of a verb "to coronate". Sounds like a back formation from the event, coronation. Maurice Fox 15:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
My, what a childish firestorm over nothing! I'm not sure what the first commenter meant by "empty my cache." I just logged in and asked about content that appeared on the browser. Maurice Fox 16:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Discrimination against non-members? What a shock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.193.138 ( talk • contribs)
2006 Super 14 Final on the main page is linking to Missionary Position! Vladdraculdragon 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Even if an article is well-written and constructed, I hardly believe the subject is worthy to be a "featured article." As it is, it's just shameless promotion, and allowing it opens the door for any politico, however obscure, to expect his or her turn in the Wiki spotlight after submitting a bio. It's an unfortunate choice (and biased, in my opinion), since his relevance to the large issues of the day is virtually nil beyond his simply being a "textbook Republican" conservative with higher political ambitions. -Pandelume
This is not the first time that Wikipedia has used the Featured Article section to promote obscure Republican candidates. The objectivity of Wikipedia is a joke. It's obvious that the Featured Article section is where one will find the LEAST important and LEAST informative articles. You can protest all you want about how this pointless article meets the "featured article criteria" but the fact is that it nothing more th an a political advertisement and it is completely unworthy of being a "featured article" in any encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.148.243 ( talk • contribs)
A featured article is a featured article, guys. If it meets the criteria, it gets the nod. This one won consensus just like all other featured articles. Let's go find a Democrat's article, fix it up, and get it on the front page too. Bellyaching will get us nowhere, especially as it's already up. — ceejayoz talk 03:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
If his rival or her supporters would like equal time, they can work to bring her article to featured status. If no one is interested in improving her article, it will not reach featured status. If there is a subject you'd rather see on the main page, please help bring its article to featured status. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
It's foolish to think this won't lead to problems by November. Wasn't there enough foreshadowing of that with the Congress scandal? -- Grocer 05:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree that it is a poor one today. It does present a form of bias, which we should really try and avoid on the main page. Yes, I understand where that bias comes from and how it happens, but people will still view it as Wikipedia pushing a bias. That and the fact that it is one of the most boring topics you could come across. Some random British/Australian/... person (hell, even most Americans) comes along and they will hardly think "Wow, this place contains some really interesting information". I'm not saying the article shouldn't be of featured status, but I don't think that it is something we should have on the front page. violet/riga (t) 09:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Complaining about the biased nature of the choice misses the point. What bothers ME is the overall poor quality of the article. It is overlong, filled with extraneous detail, lacks an overall theme, and is filled with unattributed, non-neutral statements and implications. It even lacks the little info table that has become fairly standard for politician articles. If this meets the standard for a featured article, then we need to upgrade our standards. -- 67.160.74.124 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
And, not to beat this into the ground, but I strongly encourage you to reread the Featured article criteria, then compare it to the Bob McEwen article. The article fails on almost every point. What happened here? How did this rambling mess end up as a featured article, really? -- 67.160.74.124 17:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This is the first time I have commented on something in a discussion, but I have to say: easily the "dumbest"/least relevant/most US-centric/etc. featured article ever. I guess none of those things are relevant when choosing a feature article. However, the article itself is pretty lame. Why would an article about a man (presumably meant to discuss the things said man has done that are of any interest) have four paragraphs about the details of a particular district? Something should be done about featured article criteria.-- Mark7714 20:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the article in question was not something that interested me, but then I could say that about a lot of featured articles, including those that appear on the main page, so that is neither here nor there. What does worry me is the comments that this article shouldn't have reached Featured Article status. I've recently been reading the Featured Article Candidates pages, and I have been surprised at the number of people that say "Support" for articles that clearly are not up to scratch. It is normally fairly easy as well to pick a Featured Article and find something fairly simple to improve about it. That might be part of the process of getting more exposure for an article, so as to improve it, but the simple things should be done before FA and definitely before an FA goes on the Main Page. I don't particularly want to spend a lot of time critiquing FACs, but if more people are needed to scrutinise FACs, then I might just do that. Carcharoth 20:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with the original poster... I would hope to see better picks as FA's. JohnM4402 03:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
And after all that stuff about the choice not being topical, today's FA is the FIFA World Cup...-- Mark7714 23:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone has vandalized the link to the Super-14 matches to Masonary Position.
I have noticed that today at 11am the links got underlined. I prefer it the way it was as it is distracting all those lines. Please reply on my userpage. the southerner 15:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Can the Main Page be gamed if enough Republicans suggest a feature article? Can Democrats, Libertarians, Unities, and other political parties do it, too?
Bob McEwen did not die today. It's not his birthday, either. Is he or any other retired USAmerican politician of sufficient interest to the global community of English readers to rate a feature on the Main Page?
I'm of little or no international interest. How can I get featured? Just curious. Xojo 18:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Having just read the above, I must say I agree with Pandelume, especially this bit here: "the transhumanism piece was great for its recitation of the movement's pros and cons (issue-based concept piece), keratoconus teaches a bit of science (knowledge of our world is always welcome), and even Krazy Kat illuminates the cultural milieu. All more than I can say about the McEwen piece. Any of those examples is of greater interest to me at least than the McEwen piece." I know I would never bother reading the Bob McEwan article again, though I might bother editing it at some point to make it punchier and more relevant, just to demonstrate the difference. Carcharoth 20:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The top box on this (TMP) page says "This page is 88 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." Xojo 18:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be noted in the news section that 17 people were arrested in the Toronto Area for terrorism charges, with three times the amount of fertilizer (bomb-making substance)as used in the Oklahoma City Bombing? It is alleged they were to blow up Toronto tourist highlights, like the CN Tower. This is probably the biggest news of the day. (I'll start an article on it too; any ideas for a name?) Theonlyedge 22:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Can a link to Pentecost be added to On This Day, please ? -- 199.71.174.100 08:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
its pentacost today in the West... why is it not on the 'on this day'?
There was a jewish festival/religious holiday on there yesterday..
The only reason it wasn't originally there is that, like Shavuot, its date changes every year. Next time remind us ahead of time, rather than complain later. — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-06-04 14:11
That section of the main page seems not to have been redisigned and looks ugly along with everything else below the featured picture box, therefore I propose chaing it to this:
Other areas of Wikipedia
Help desk | Reference desk | Village pump | Community portal | Site news |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ask questions about using Wikipedia. | Serving as virtual librarians, Wikipedia volunteers tackle your questions on a wide range of subjects. | For discussions about Wikipedia itself, including areas for technical issues and policies. | Bulletin board, projects, resources and activities covering a wide range of Wikipedia areas. | Announcements, updates, articles and press releases on Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. |
Suggestions are appreciated. L C @ R S DA T A 12:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors — ceejayoz talk 18:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see from the "Welcome to Wikipedia" intro, there are two introductions, one points to "Wikipedia:introduction" and one to "Welcome, newcomers". This seems redundant and confusing. Even if they are different in what they cover, most users will not make the distinction, and will ultimately click either, without any consideration to where it points to exactly. We, wikipedians might know the distinction, but we must keep in mind to look from the point of view of the people that might need the introduction. Msoos 18:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Would it be good to make the word encyclopedia in the main title "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." linked to the wikipedia article?-- Exander 21:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Isn't there a runner up featured article? Or can we at least get rid of the pic - it is disturbing. Chooserr 00:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You want to replace the featured article because you don't like a picture of an eyeball? Ugh... — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-06-05 02:17
Seriously. That picture is way squickish. Eww. - Brian Kendig 02:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Since you people are so squeamish, I've switched the picture to something else. Raul654 02:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Argh, make up your minds! Ok, I've changed it back to the orginal, and that's final :) Raul654 03:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Seriously people, get over it. Its just an eye! skorpion 04:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The picture of a deformed eyeball is not suitable for the frontpage! Many peoplr of all ages and sensabilities visit Wikipedia. Such media imagery should not be used. I personally think it looks horrible and will have images blocked from now on. What a shame 62.3.70.68 04:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Raul654 04:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't usually resort to name-calling, but what a bunch of morons! Next thing you know, we won't be featuring "Evolution" because it might disturb the "religious sensibilities" of 2,5 percent of Wikipedia's readers. A picture of an eye is a picture of an eye. An encyclopedia's scope is not limited to fluffy bunnies. Get over it. Mstroeck 16:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
This isn't politics, it's aesthetics. I'm sick of looking at that thing. It's not just a normal eye, it is a deformed eye, it has the lids pulled back, and it is quite disturbing. Have some taste, please? Joel Michael 19:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you please change the image of today's featured article, Keratoconus? It's extremely grotesque, I lost my appitite (I happen to like eating and surfing Wiki), and generally not the sort of thing one wants to see logging onto the mainpage of Wikipedia.
I wonder how many people will complain when this featured picture shows up on the mainpage on June 25. Shawnc 05:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC) I'm afraid he's right. For every complaint you recieve there is probably a thousand people who feel the same way but can't be bothered letting you know about. As for praise, well, you shouldn't expect that unless an article is sensationally spectacular. People are hard to please but complaints are usually the tip of an iceberg. Personally I don't find the image very sexy either. Richard Branson 06:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the front page shouldn't be censored,but I too have found the picture a bit disturbing everytime I open the home page. Guess it has made me realise how often I am wasting time, and that eye does get me back on task again. 220.240.57.146 05:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
We SHOULD change the picture. Not remove it from the article, that would be censorship. But the front page is the most visible part of the site and when people come to it they don't know what to expect, not like when they are opening an article and expecting it to contain pictures. This is not a censorship issue. I don't remember we ever posting hard-core pornography on the Main Page. Everybody understands that we shouldn't disturb readers without giving them a chance to suspect that they may be disturbed. I'm not disturbed easily by images, but even I was revolted by this image. Let's not bring the non-issue of censorship into this, nobody is demanding you censor the article. Just eithe rremove or linkimage it from the Main Page to save some vomits and lost readers. Loom91 06:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
How about a bit of perpective? Its a medical condition, it illustrates the article in question, it is an eyeball: nearly everyone has two and as medical conditions go, it is quite tame. Just thank your lucky stars that the article on the front page isn't small pox and the picture isnt of a small pox victim. Or worse. skorpion 06:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
This picture is too nasty. What kind of picture would you put up if the featured article was "goatse.cx"? Everyone I've spoken too personally agrees with me that this picture is just too repulsive. Onsmelly 06:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It's an eye! Haven't you ever seen an eye before? Perhaps you're too busy looking out of them :P. I have no problem with the current image, and prefer it to the alternative Image:Corneal-hydrops.jpg. The only other image in that article that could work would be Image:Corneal topography right ax.jpg, though it isn't terribly interesting. — TheKMan talk 06:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I wonder, is it the very sight of an eye that is grossing people out, or the sight of an eye exposed to potential danger (from needles or other sharp objects), and our minds are filling in those possibilities of danger, leading us to be repulsed. Anyone? — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-06-05 07:01
Some of you people need to gain a bit of a perspective on the world. As some above have pointed out; this is an eye, most people have two and if you turn away from your monitor and interact with some real people you may see some more. OH NOES! PUT A PATCH OVER THEM! lol sorry for my flipancy, but seriously, if you can't stand illustrative pictures of encyclopedic subjects you have no business reading them. There are far more disturbing things in the real world, this project is about documenting them. --
Monotonehell
07:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep: it's not like that image is one of a massive penis or anything :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Remove: Seeing medical imagery should be by choice not just because you visit the homepage of an mass market encyclopedia. 199.4.27.1 08:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself, but it isn't the fact that it is an eye. I have two, and quite like them, but I think it is the size, reality and un-avoidablility maybe. looking at the homepage, there it is, in all its glory. I do consider myself sqeemish, but if it were a diagram, as opposed to an image, I wouldn't think twice about it. 220.240.57.146 08:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit it put me off my breakfast a bit, and I've seen the image before. I don't have a problem with it being in the article (even at the top) but putting it on the main page is a bit much. Our first concern should be for our readers, many of whom are going to see this image with no choice. I would expect many of them won't know how to complain either, or just won't bother to find out. I would swap it with something else, but unfortunately there aren't really any other images in the article that are suitable. the wub "?!" 09:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh for goodness sakes, the image will be replaced in a matter of hours once the next article is chosen. I doubt 24 hours of this image being shown is going to that much harm. ---- Cyrenaic
I hardly ever comment on Wiki - but this image just got to me. I use Wiki a lot and today I find myself avoiding it. The gross images should be kept for the article page - they shouldn't be there on the homepage. Glad to know I'm not the only one that feels this way!~~Tina S~~
I, too, am one of the once-silent majority. That image was disgusting. Whoever removed it has my sincerest thanks. Frankly, if it was a good image, it would have more defenders. This idea that 'only complainers complain' is nonsense. And all you self-righteous jerks who think that ticking off a large minority is somehow a good thing... please, don't work on the main page. We don't want you to. 128.135.108.86 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC) (Edit: changed majority to minority. 128.135.108.86 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC))
I think a reduction of the picture size is a reasonable compromise, it greatly reduces the impact of the image. otocan
I'd say swap it with this one, as it's harmless and shows the EFFECT of the disease, rather than just what it looks like. More informative in my opinion. MightyMoose22 13:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone undid my removal and put the squicky picture back up there. I just changed it to Image:Corneal topography right ax.jpg instead; while it doesn't illustrate the condition quite as clearly, that's the point. I thought about using the Kc simulation picture instead, but when made small enough to fit on the FA section of the home page, I felt it was too vague. - Brian Kendig 13:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
What the question boils down to is this: Should a visitor to the Wikipedia home page be presented with an image which he is likely to find repulsive? (I feel it's safe to assume that a lot of people may find this image repulsive; if you disagree and think most people won't bat an eye at it, please speak up.) Does Wikipedia have a responsibility to acquaint homepage visitors with the details of today's Featured Article even if the details might be repulsive? My answer to this would be no; I see no obligation to put the repulsive image on the home page. As long as it's still in the article, that's not censorship. - Brian Kendig 14:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The state of affairs involving this image helps to highlight how strange Wikipedia's policies on censorship is. The policy is odd in the sense that without logical censorship of pointlessly "grotesque" images, a large proportion of learners and people striving for information (i.e. Children and people who might be sensitive to such images), cannot take advantage of Wikipedia. It's a policy which doesn't make Wikipedia accessible to all, but only accessible to people over 18 or 21, who happen to not get squeamish over such graphic images.
It's often said pictures can be a thousand words. In this case 33 words: the initial first sentence. Perhaps that shows how pointless it is to have such an image on the front page. 172.209.131.104 15:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does have a history of where it would censor images. For instance, when the swastika was the featured article, the image was of a Nazi swastika was originally used and it was changed to the Hindu image to be less offensive. Behun 15:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll add a few words here as one of the principal authors of the article and the one who nominated it for the front page. There was never any intention whatsoever to cause people repulsion and it is regrettable that this turned out to be the case. I actually have keratoconus: it's not even a rare condition. -- BillC 16:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I choose education over censorship anyday. Ignorance leads to trouble. Read history -- Monotonehell 17:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep it. All arguments have been stated, just wanted to chime in in support.-- Zambaccian 21:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The way that some people cannot tell the difference between sensitivity based on good taste and real censorship is very sad. This picture should not have been shown out of respect for the squeamish, but it is all to clear that people with gross out tastes do not have any respect for those who feel differently. Chicheley 15:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I came across this arguement by chance, because I never expected anyone would be anything other than facinated by that picture... I think the arguement that mostly people who don't like it will go to the discussion and complain... everyone I know who saw that picture thought it was interesting and not "disgusting" ... I know I'm a few days late but I wanted to add my support anyway Misterniceguy7 14:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The current image for the featured article (the diagram) is ridiculously dull, uninformative, and confusing to the average reader. You can't read the axes, or the words, or anything. Even at "full size", it's only 173px wide. Whereas the original image made it clear exactly what the disorder was, this image tells you nothing. What's the point?
Also Raul654 said further up that the eyeball image is final. Please respect his decision. We don't need to revert war over the side profile of a person about to put in a contact lens, who happens to have a disorder.
The only thing that is making people squeamish is seeing an eye exposed to whatever possible dangers their brains can and do imagine, an eye that they can't close. We should censor an image for the mental pictures that people create?
This is NOT a picture of medical imagery. If you walked by someone with this disorder as he was putting in his contact lenses, you'd see this exact same image. — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-06-05 15:29
See my comment above. -- BillC 17:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
PLEASE get rid of that photo --or crop it to the part of the eyeball that's relevant. The whole "popping eyeball" thing on the mainpage is excessive and gross. Why not just do a feature on the asshole and use that photo that's running around. It really turned me off when I went to the mainpage, and I know it must be disturbing to most people visiting --and it isn't apparently necessary, if I'm reading the summary right. I love all the "OMG, you must not be serious about wikipedia if you don't like the photo on the mainpage" comments...seriously, what is up with that attitude? -- Bobak 17:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you all get my comment? Why not crop the photo to the actual eyeball instead of the gratuitous parts around it (the parts that are what are actually creeping people). The stretched eyelid above and below has nothing, nothing to do with the subject. I have yet to see someone explain that. Hah, have your eyeball and eat it to :-p -- Bobak 19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with the majority of the people here. This image is disturbing, to say the least, and I think by the very nature that there are about a hundred or more people complaining about it shows that there are a lot more who don't write here very disturbed by it. This isn't censorship, this is just 'can we find a less squeamish picture to put up'? I'm sure the article's great, and there seemed to be several good pictures in it, but that picture is just too much for the main page. 24.60.193.70 20:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I happen to be used to seeing pictures of medical conditions, some of which should be labelled with warnings. That's probably why the eye picture didn't shock me. But I recognise that some people would be shocked by it. I suggest that the guidelines for the use of images of nudity/genitalia/whatever are updated to include medical imagery. There is a grey area, and some people are more easily shocked than others. That is why there should be a guideline somewhere on the use of medical imagery that has the potential to shock people. Carcharoth 21:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm more offended by the way this mess has been handled by administrators. The condescension fairly drips off this page. Very little effort at building a consensus. -- squirrel 21:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Just one final note. I've tallied up the responses, and there are about 45 posters who are vehemently against posting the image, 5 for vehemently keeping it, 10 for keeping it but expressing no strong opinion, and 2-3 of no opinion. 24.60.193.70 22:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
There's now a new Featured Article on the home page, and so this issue is dead; but I wanted to make two comments for the record because I believe the problem has been misrepresented in the discussion above. One: it's not about offending people, a picture of an eye is not offensive; it's about being tasteful and considerate to people who would come to Wikipedia and not expect to be grossed out by an image suddenly presented before them. Two: This is not the best possible image by which to illustrate the problem, because the photo is of someone's eye being held open by fingers, the skin around it being pulled back - THAT is what makes the photo grotesque. If it had been a closeup of a normal eye being held open that way, it still would have been squickish. If the photo of the diseased eye had not had the skin being pulled back from it, I believe it would have been an acceptable photo for use on the home page. - Brian Kendig 00:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The article is too grotesque to be on the main page, please change the article or at least take off the picture, thank you.-- Andy 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I've uploaded a new version of the picture. It's a minor change but it may be slightly less objectionable. If anyone likes it, feel free to use this version in the article. Shawnc 04:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I object to this disgusting, horrific krazy kat that is on the main page. Wocka-wocka-wocka! -- Bobak 00:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
South park was mocking scientoligy nott promoting it-- Andy 11:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, my article for Fuck (film) was denied DYK status because it was considered offensive, and while Wikipedia is not censored, a potentially offensive image should be replaced if it does not cause the article to be less relevant, informative, or accurate. Cigarette 16:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me for butting in here, but as a long time reader (but not a contributor) and, yes, fan of Wikipedia, I am quite frankly appalled at this whole "Thine eye offends me" debate. I understand that as scholarly bookworm types you may have trouble dealing with reality. But it's a picture of an eye. I do appreciate all the hard work you folks have put into Wikipedia. I, for one, am certainly much more knowledgeable about the world thanks to you. But I am shocked that you would spend so much time and effort on such an utterly trivial matter. Personally, I read Wikipedia for the raw undiluted facts, not for some pre-digested pablum that Mommy and Daddy think won't upset my innocent 3-yr old mind too much. If I wanted that, I'd go to disney.com
</rant>
-wisefool
ps - I'm almost tempted to start my own "Freepedia - The Uncensored Version"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.17.74 ( talk • contribs)
probably because she could not comprehend what she was seeing, ansd i dont think a 5 year old could care at all about eye diseases so i believe u made that story up-- Andy 17:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
There is work to be done on wikipedia, is it like a job, that sucks i thought u could edit what u want when u want-- The Nation 17:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
volunteering sucks, especially for something that doesnt care how you feel, it just cares about its namesake to protect-- The Nation 19:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
What of this horrible picture of a man on the frontpage? Graven images! Wikipedia is full of idolaters --BURN THEM (it?)!!!1!111one! --18:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
WORLD CUP?! There is only one cup, and it is the holy grail, there is only one football, and it's American. I am offended!!! -- Bobak 00:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The devanagri version of hindi is spelt wrong. It reads "Hanedee" rather than Hindi. Seems like I can't edit it.
Thought that this should be on the main page Peruvian national election, 2006. The second round was held yesterday (June 4) and Ollanta Humala has already conceded the election which means that former Peruvian President Alan Garcia is President-elect of Peru.-- Jersey Devil 10:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Serbia has formally acknowledged the breakup of S&M: [5]. Perhaps the "in the news" item on Montenegro should be recast to announce the country's formal breakup? -- Jfruh ( talk) 16:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
In The News should be updated a lot faster, effort goes into updating articles for ITN so it would be nice if there was some quicker movement from admins. -- Midnight tonight 04:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Why is the fact that the world is prophecised to end today not on here?! - furthermore I think that in general wikipedia is quite weak in that regard - see Number of the Beast and Nostradamus- yeh and you just wait - the sky will turn to flame and the apocolypse will come when the antichrist rises, only 8 hours 26 minutes left! - you'll see! Benjaminstewart05 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Everyone repeat after me: That's great, it starts with an earthquake, birds and snakes, an aeroplane - Lenny Bruce is not afraid. Raul654 15:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it here yet??? - I'm in GMT which is widely regarded as 0 so it might start here - so seven hours and twenty one minute left!! - good luck! - get away from the coast and onto high ground - lol. Benjaminstewart05 15:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been playing REM and " O Fortuna" all day :) — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-06-06 17:48
For some reason the link on the front page for the Battle of Normandy isn't working - in the "on this day..." box Sotakeit 16:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
It's linked to the article's edit page instead of the article itself. MartinMcCann 16:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The Czechoslovak Constitution mentioned should link to the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth-of-May_Constitution
I think the pic is too gross for a main page pic. Its an intestine polyp.. yuck ... andrewkeith80 08:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It's amazing how diseased internal organs only garner one complaint while a picture of an eye filled the page with discussion. -- Monotonehell 15:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
This is false information. Muhammed simply completed the message of delivering the message of Islam to the world. Before Muhammed , there were many other prophets of God such as Adam, Ibrahim (Abraham), Isa (Jesus) etc. Please correct this piece of misinformation
Muhammad is clearly the founder of Islam and anything else such as the views stated above are purely POV. Articles should mention that Muhammad is viewed not as the founder but as the final prophet of Islam within the belief itself. Also, whether or not Islam recognises older prophets has no bearing on the fact that Islam simply did not exist until Muhammad founded it - regardless of Muslim claims to be the original religion ( class under "religious belief" rather than "historical fact"). siarach 17:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps: "Wikipedia-links: the world to gather"? Verrekijker 10:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The Page should be better surfable bei the keyboard, because it is faster, like:
like the cursor should be in the search field when you access the page or when you found a page. it would be nice, that after you searched for some word sou could instandly tab through the available posible pages. Or to have some shutcuts to make browsing faster
That is just a
For this we crash the servers? :-) Skittle 14:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Tell Wikipedia it's welcome.-
G
a
n
g
staEB-
15:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Please get it off the front page as one of Wikipedia most notorious critics recently published a vicious article accusing Wikipedians of being self-important and we don't want to give the scoundrel ammunition.
Osomec
17:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
What was the code for that bar thing that said "Wikipedia thanks its contributors for writing 1000 featured articles? I need it for the WarWiki. (That was not a spam. I seriously need it). -- Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 20:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Today's Selected anniversaries box is really misleading. It's a picture of an event: Challenger exploding, implying that Challenger exploded today. Which it didn't. Melchoir 00:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Could we get the intro for today's featured article fixed? According to WP:MoS#Acronyms and abbreviations, United States should be abbreviated U.S. (note the periods or full stops). Right now it is used both ways, US and U.S. in the same paragraph. Dismas| (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The blurb for today's featured article says: Wisconsin ... currently functions as a museum ship at the Nauticus National Maritime Center in Norfolk, Virginia. Wisconsin ... is currently awaiting donation for use as a museum ship. The article says this, too. I don't understand - is she a museum ship now, or will she become a museum ship? - Brian Kendig 04:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Woohoo, one thousand featured articles. Woo hoo! Eyeball kid 04:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The current mark-up language (linebreaks mine):
<font face="verdana,arial,helvetica"><b>The English-language Wikipedia thanks its contributors for writing <span class="plainlinks"> <a href="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_Announces_Thousandth_Featured_Article" class='external text' title="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_Announces_Thousandth_Featured_Article">one thousand featured articles</a></span>.</b></font>
This is awful! It uses the deprecated font tag which will make the main page fail validation. It also hardcodes fonts, which I frown upon (all other fonts in the Monobook skin use "sans-serif" as font to ensure that people can choose which font they want to use).
Please change it into this:
<span class="plainlinks" style="font-weight: bold;">The English-language Wikipedia thanks its contributors for writing <a href="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_Announces_Thousandth_Featured_Article" class='external text' title="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_Announces_Thousandth_Featured_Article">one thousand featured articles</a>.</span>
It would make the text use the default font (which is "sans-serif") while still being valid XHTML. —Michiel Sikma 「 Gebruiker/ Overleg」 08:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I found the following in the main page:
" ..that Reverend William Mitchell was an Anglican missionary, and the first ordained
person to provide religious services in the Swan Valley area ... "
The words "religious services" should not be used in this context as there are many religions including the religions of australians before the westerners came to Australia. The right use should be "christian religious services".
As I cannot edit the main page myself, I request you to attend to this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.54.176.109 ( talk • contribs) .
Wikipedia exercises bias and is slanted towards 'negative western popular beleif'. The practices are reminiscent to totalitarian propagandists, that censor any information that challenges their political beleifs. I would not trust this source of information due to it's editors 'gang' mentality. As well as their 'removal' of information outright without valid reason. Their ignorance of misifnormation and pop culture facts that are not 'truthful' place the validity of this site as anything more then a popular medium is certain. This site is more about politics then it is about spreading truthful information. The systems used to catagorize information are often 'discriminatory' especially in favour of western practices and Eurocentric and American-Centric bias. The most severe practices are outright deletion much like ftp deleters, and claiming information is 'nonsense' or 'original': where the first is an outright attack without valid reason and the second is plainly political for not liking or agreeing with what is stated without giving any valid reason. "All comments are original interpretations of other information." Where something is completely derived or self sourced then it is understood to be 'original sourced'. However, in the case of an article being composed from excerpts of something else, it is no more original then other works, thus disputable; however outright deletion with no reasoning other then stating an item is original, in the case of using a source document. Such practices are false practices. The censoring done by wikipedia is common practice, and appears to be politically motivated. I would not use this source for any unbiased works, as this is an extermely biased and censoring site. Don't let the anyone can edit or contribute line at face value. Many times any additions to the information pages are removed, often without any reason other then personal attacks or 'incorrect' editing, in the form of falsely stating something is something that it isn't such as the case of original works. This site politically censors, not for information validity reasons, but for political reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.167.147 ( talk • contribs)
It isn't about 'liking' it is about providing truthful information.
Sorry to be a fuss pot, but as the 1,000 articles have already been created, surely it should read as a thankyou "for having created 1,000 articles". I just thought that I might bring it up Lofty 15:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Can we put something in the Main Page Current Events section about net neutrality? Its of vested interest to all of us, and we need to make sure that the discussion is available to those who come looking for it (and even those who arent looking for it, thus the CE addition request). I think that the HoR defeat last night provides enough media coverage to justify it.
I've noticed a lot of traffic on this page is caused by people misunderstanding the purpose of the ITN section on the main page. ITN is not WikiNews. Would renaming the header help? That is if we can think of a better, more explanitory title. Something like "Current events" (where it links to already); "Articles in the news"; "Current affairs"; "Hot items" ; "Hot articles"; "In flux"; "Happening now"; "Ronald the hampster" (Okay not the last one. These suck a bit, just throwing a few out there) -- Monotonehell 18:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
From Did You Know: "That a circumferentor was an important tool to surveyors for mapping the western frontier?" The western frontier of where? The U.S. of course, but other countries also have western frontiers. Please amend it. 62.31.55.223 19:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 65 | ← | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | → | Archive 75 |
Clicking 'newest articles' on the Main Page now brings me to Recent additions rather than to New pages. Clicking 'Archive' already has this function, so there's now two links doing the same, and none doing what I want it to. Why has this happened? Eixo 22:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was BORING!!!!!
People, the discussion of what [is put in the news] box? I flew there before! but putting the Pirate Bay raid above the Indonesian earthquake with 1000s of dead is not only systemic bias but decadent, taste- and heartless. PLEASE change at least the order. wtf! gbrandt 06:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
What seems strange in this discussion is that no one is objecting to the opening of a train station in Germany among these headlines. Piet 13:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
pirate bays back up and running :)the mpaa must be very very upset lol
It's probably not in good taste to have a major earthquake anywhere but on the top, but apart from that, I say let's keep the systemic bias! Nobody will be affected by the architectural marvels of a train station, while the effects of insane copyright regulation and freedom-of-information issues might be felt for generations after we are gone. Also, I don't see how a guy running amok is "important". It's disgusting and obviously strangely fascinating to some people, but surely not of any consequence to me or 99,9% of the world's population... Now please flame me. Mstroeck 15:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Very Anglo-Saxon centered today and not very interesting IMHO. Charles de Gaulle and the Three Gorges Dam could have given some balance. Piet 10:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose "races" be quotemarked. Without the quotations, it implies support for the concept of multiple races. In my opinion, as the sentence begins with "under apartheid", using quotes would convey that that was the term employed by the regime of South Africa. "Ethnic groups" would be preferable, though, as it arguably avoids any POV. SoLando ( Talk) 11:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You are probably in favor of affirmative action though, which I find hilarious. I'm just playing the odds. Haizum 22:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Who writes the main page?
"An earthquake on the island of Java, Indonesia (location pictured) kills at least 6,200 people"
The front page write-up on the apartheid beach table is really disgusting, it conveys apartheid is borderline normal or something like that. In fact apartheid has been classified in mandatory UN resolutions as evil and inherently criminal under international jurisdiction, which even wikipedia cannot ignore, since UN general assembly resolutions are delivered in the name of the entire mankind. Therefore apartheid must not be portrayed as "petty" or insignificant. Especially in the light of South Africa's planned negrocide in the Angola invasion (which was stopped only by cuban soldiers landing) and its amassing of atomic bombs for the purpose (with no little help from Dimona), we must say apartheid was en par with the Hitler's Third Reich.
I understand how the west and zionists want to suppress and lessen criticism and condemnation of apartheid regime, since USA and Israel were the main open and clandestine military backers of South Africa during the period of international sanctions, claiming anti-communism supercedes racial opression. Yet, if wikipedia emulates that, than wikipedia is no more than a cold-war propaganda megaphone. 195.70.32.136 15:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
In contrast to DYK requirements, USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle B in DYK has no hook, is longish and full of technicalities. As a result of its inclusion, the template is too long and looks disproportionate. Please consider removal. -- Ghirla -трёп- 16:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The link in the Did you know boxe should link to newest article and not recent additions. Something should be done. Moonray 20:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I know the image on the Main Page for Transhumanism looks really nice, but it's a fair-use image. Is there a free image that could replace it? joturn e r 00:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I was looking at the main page and clicked the link to the featured atricle on
Transhumanism but all that appears is a short stub on the subject. The article still appears in full as the latest version in the history but just not under the article tab. Has anyone else encountered this? Appears to have been corrected.
See the discussion here: WP:VPR#Date on Main page.
What do you think of this for incorporating the date on the main page? — M e ts501 talk 05:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
One reason I thought that the date and time (UTC) would be a good idea was because sometimes it's confusing to users to see an "On this day..." box for what would be the next day in their time zone. — M e ts501 talk 20:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it Shavuot today? Might as well put that down seeing as there are no holidays or anything currently mentioned. Horses In The Sky talk contributions
Does anyone think it would be a good idea to place a clear portal to the Simple English Wikipedia on the main page, allowing fast access to a simplified version of the encyclopedia? User:Micheal Dart/Signature
Hmm. I thought Queen Elizabeth II was crowned. I have never seen the form coronated, which would imply the existence of a verb "to coronate". Sounds like a back formation from the event, coronation. Maurice Fox 15:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
My, what a childish firestorm over nothing! I'm not sure what the first commenter meant by "empty my cache." I just logged in and asked about content that appeared on the browser. Maurice Fox 16:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Discrimination against non-members? What a shock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.193.138 ( talk • contribs)
2006 Super 14 Final on the main page is linking to Missionary Position! Vladdraculdragon 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Even if an article is well-written and constructed, I hardly believe the subject is worthy to be a "featured article." As it is, it's just shameless promotion, and allowing it opens the door for any politico, however obscure, to expect his or her turn in the Wiki spotlight after submitting a bio. It's an unfortunate choice (and biased, in my opinion), since his relevance to the large issues of the day is virtually nil beyond his simply being a "textbook Republican" conservative with higher political ambitions. -Pandelume
This is not the first time that Wikipedia has used the Featured Article section to promote obscure Republican candidates. The objectivity of Wikipedia is a joke. It's obvious that the Featured Article section is where one will find the LEAST important and LEAST informative articles. You can protest all you want about how this pointless article meets the "featured article criteria" but the fact is that it nothing more th an a political advertisement and it is completely unworthy of being a "featured article" in any encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.148.243 ( talk • contribs)
A featured article is a featured article, guys. If it meets the criteria, it gets the nod. This one won consensus just like all other featured articles. Let's go find a Democrat's article, fix it up, and get it on the front page too. Bellyaching will get us nowhere, especially as it's already up. — ceejayoz talk 03:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
If his rival or her supporters would like equal time, they can work to bring her article to featured status. If no one is interested in improving her article, it will not reach featured status. If there is a subject you'd rather see on the main page, please help bring its article to featured status. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
It's foolish to think this won't lead to problems by November. Wasn't there enough foreshadowing of that with the Congress scandal? -- Grocer 05:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree that it is a poor one today. It does present a form of bias, which we should really try and avoid on the main page. Yes, I understand where that bias comes from and how it happens, but people will still view it as Wikipedia pushing a bias. That and the fact that it is one of the most boring topics you could come across. Some random British/Australian/... person (hell, even most Americans) comes along and they will hardly think "Wow, this place contains some really interesting information". I'm not saying the article shouldn't be of featured status, but I don't think that it is something we should have on the front page. violet/riga (t) 09:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Complaining about the biased nature of the choice misses the point. What bothers ME is the overall poor quality of the article. It is overlong, filled with extraneous detail, lacks an overall theme, and is filled with unattributed, non-neutral statements and implications. It even lacks the little info table that has become fairly standard for politician articles. If this meets the standard for a featured article, then we need to upgrade our standards. -- 67.160.74.124 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
And, not to beat this into the ground, but I strongly encourage you to reread the Featured article criteria, then compare it to the Bob McEwen article. The article fails on almost every point. What happened here? How did this rambling mess end up as a featured article, really? -- 67.160.74.124 17:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This is the first time I have commented on something in a discussion, but I have to say: easily the "dumbest"/least relevant/most US-centric/etc. featured article ever. I guess none of those things are relevant when choosing a feature article. However, the article itself is pretty lame. Why would an article about a man (presumably meant to discuss the things said man has done that are of any interest) have four paragraphs about the details of a particular district? Something should be done about featured article criteria.-- Mark7714 20:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the article in question was not something that interested me, but then I could say that about a lot of featured articles, including those that appear on the main page, so that is neither here nor there. What does worry me is the comments that this article shouldn't have reached Featured Article status. I've recently been reading the Featured Article Candidates pages, and I have been surprised at the number of people that say "Support" for articles that clearly are not up to scratch. It is normally fairly easy as well to pick a Featured Article and find something fairly simple to improve about it. That might be part of the process of getting more exposure for an article, so as to improve it, but the simple things should be done before FA and definitely before an FA goes on the Main Page. I don't particularly want to spend a lot of time critiquing FACs, but if more people are needed to scrutinise FACs, then I might just do that. Carcharoth 20:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with the original poster... I would hope to see better picks as FA's. JohnM4402 03:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
And after all that stuff about the choice not being topical, today's FA is the FIFA World Cup...-- Mark7714 23:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone has vandalized the link to the Super-14 matches to Masonary Position.
I have noticed that today at 11am the links got underlined. I prefer it the way it was as it is distracting all those lines. Please reply on my userpage. the southerner 15:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Can the Main Page be gamed if enough Republicans suggest a feature article? Can Democrats, Libertarians, Unities, and other political parties do it, too?
Bob McEwen did not die today. It's not his birthday, either. Is he or any other retired USAmerican politician of sufficient interest to the global community of English readers to rate a feature on the Main Page?
I'm of little or no international interest. How can I get featured? Just curious. Xojo 18:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Having just read the above, I must say I agree with Pandelume, especially this bit here: "the transhumanism piece was great for its recitation of the movement's pros and cons (issue-based concept piece), keratoconus teaches a bit of science (knowledge of our world is always welcome), and even Krazy Kat illuminates the cultural milieu. All more than I can say about the McEwen piece. Any of those examples is of greater interest to me at least than the McEwen piece." I know I would never bother reading the Bob McEwan article again, though I might bother editing it at some point to make it punchier and more relevant, just to demonstrate the difference. Carcharoth 20:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The top box on this (TMP) page says "This page is 88 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." Xojo 18:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be noted in the news section that 17 people were arrested in the Toronto Area for terrorism charges, with three times the amount of fertilizer (bomb-making substance)as used in the Oklahoma City Bombing? It is alleged they were to blow up Toronto tourist highlights, like the CN Tower. This is probably the biggest news of the day. (I'll start an article on it too; any ideas for a name?) Theonlyedge 22:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Can a link to Pentecost be added to On This Day, please ? -- 199.71.174.100 08:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
its pentacost today in the West... why is it not on the 'on this day'?
There was a jewish festival/religious holiday on there yesterday..
The only reason it wasn't originally there is that, like Shavuot, its date changes every year. Next time remind us ahead of time, rather than complain later. — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-06-04 14:11
That section of the main page seems not to have been redisigned and looks ugly along with everything else below the featured picture box, therefore I propose chaing it to this:
Other areas of Wikipedia
Help desk | Reference desk | Village pump | Community portal | Site news |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ask questions about using Wikipedia. | Serving as virtual librarians, Wikipedia volunteers tackle your questions on a wide range of subjects. | For discussions about Wikipedia itself, including areas for technical issues and policies. | Bulletin board, projects, resources and activities covering a wide range of Wikipedia areas. | Announcements, updates, articles and press releases on Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. |
Suggestions are appreciated. L C @ R S DA T A 12:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors — ceejayoz talk 18:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see from the "Welcome to Wikipedia" intro, there are two introductions, one points to "Wikipedia:introduction" and one to "Welcome, newcomers". This seems redundant and confusing. Even if they are different in what they cover, most users will not make the distinction, and will ultimately click either, without any consideration to where it points to exactly. We, wikipedians might know the distinction, but we must keep in mind to look from the point of view of the people that might need the introduction. Msoos 18:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Would it be good to make the word encyclopedia in the main title "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." linked to the wikipedia article?-- Exander 21:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Isn't there a runner up featured article? Or can we at least get rid of the pic - it is disturbing. Chooserr 00:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You want to replace the featured article because you don't like a picture of an eyeball? Ugh... — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-06-05 02:17
Seriously. That picture is way squickish. Eww. - Brian Kendig 02:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Since you people are so squeamish, I've switched the picture to something else. Raul654 02:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Argh, make up your minds! Ok, I've changed it back to the orginal, and that's final :) Raul654 03:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Seriously people, get over it. Its just an eye! skorpion 04:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The picture of a deformed eyeball is not suitable for the frontpage! Many peoplr of all ages and sensabilities visit Wikipedia. Such media imagery should not be used. I personally think it looks horrible and will have images blocked from now on. What a shame 62.3.70.68 04:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Raul654 04:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't usually resort to name-calling, but what a bunch of morons! Next thing you know, we won't be featuring "Evolution" because it might disturb the "religious sensibilities" of 2,5 percent of Wikipedia's readers. A picture of an eye is a picture of an eye. An encyclopedia's scope is not limited to fluffy bunnies. Get over it. Mstroeck 16:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
This isn't politics, it's aesthetics. I'm sick of looking at that thing. It's not just a normal eye, it is a deformed eye, it has the lids pulled back, and it is quite disturbing. Have some taste, please? Joel Michael 19:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you please change the image of today's featured article, Keratoconus? It's extremely grotesque, I lost my appitite (I happen to like eating and surfing Wiki), and generally not the sort of thing one wants to see logging onto the mainpage of Wikipedia.
I wonder how many people will complain when this featured picture shows up on the mainpage on June 25. Shawnc 05:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC) I'm afraid he's right. For every complaint you recieve there is probably a thousand people who feel the same way but can't be bothered letting you know about. As for praise, well, you shouldn't expect that unless an article is sensationally spectacular. People are hard to please but complaints are usually the tip of an iceberg. Personally I don't find the image very sexy either. Richard Branson 06:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the front page shouldn't be censored,but I too have found the picture a bit disturbing everytime I open the home page. Guess it has made me realise how often I am wasting time, and that eye does get me back on task again. 220.240.57.146 05:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
We SHOULD change the picture. Not remove it from the article, that would be censorship. But the front page is the most visible part of the site and when people come to it they don't know what to expect, not like when they are opening an article and expecting it to contain pictures. This is not a censorship issue. I don't remember we ever posting hard-core pornography on the Main Page. Everybody understands that we shouldn't disturb readers without giving them a chance to suspect that they may be disturbed. I'm not disturbed easily by images, but even I was revolted by this image. Let's not bring the non-issue of censorship into this, nobody is demanding you censor the article. Just eithe rremove or linkimage it from the Main Page to save some vomits and lost readers. Loom91 06:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
How about a bit of perpective? Its a medical condition, it illustrates the article in question, it is an eyeball: nearly everyone has two and as medical conditions go, it is quite tame. Just thank your lucky stars that the article on the front page isn't small pox and the picture isnt of a small pox victim. Or worse. skorpion 06:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
This picture is too nasty. What kind of picture would you put up if the featured article was "goatse.cx"? Everyone I've spoken too personally agrees with me that this picture is just too repulsive. Onsmelly 06:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It's an eye! Haven't you ever seen an eye before? Perhaps you're too busy looking out of them :P. I have no problem with the current image, and prefer it to the alternative Image:Corneal-hydrops.jpg. The only other image in that article that could work would be Image:Corneal topography right ax.jpg, though it isn't terribly interesting. — TheKMan talk 06:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I wonder, is it the very sight of an eye that is grossing people out, or the sight of an eye exposed to potential danger (from needles or other sharp objects), and our minds are filling in those possibilities of danger, leading us to be repulsed. Anyone? — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-06-05 07:01
Some of you people need to gain a bit of a perspective on the world. As some above have pointed out; this is an eye, most people have two and if you turn away from your monitor and interact with some real people you may see some more. OH NOES! PUT A PATCH OVER THEM! lol sorry for my flipancy, but seriously, if you can't stand illustrative pictures of encyclopedic subjects you have no business reading them. There are far more disturbing things in the real world, this project is about documenting them. --
Monotonehell
07:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep: it's not like that image is one of a massive penis or anything :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Remove: Seeing medical imagery should be by choice not just because you visit the homepage of an mass market encyclopedia. 199.4.27.1 08:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself, but it isn't the fact that it is an eye. I have two, and quite like them, but I think it is the size, reality and un-avoidablility maybe. looking at the homepage, there it is, in all its glory. I do consider myself sqeemish, but if it were a diagram, as opposed to an image, I wouldn't think twice about it. 220.240.57.146 08:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit it put me off my breakfast a bit, and I've seen the image before. I don't have a problem with it being in the article (even at the top) but putting it on the main page is a bit much. Our first concern should be for our readers, many of whom are going to see this image with no choice. I would expect many of them won't know how to complain either, or just won't bother to find out. I would swap it with something else, but unfortunately there aren't really any other images in the article that are suitable. the wub "?!" 09:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh for goodness sakes, the image will be replaced in a matter of hours once the next article is chosen. I doubt 24 hours of this image being shown is going to that much harm. ---- Cyrenaic
I hardly ever comment on Wiki - but this image just got to me. I use Wiki a lot and today I find myself avoiding it. The gross images should be kept for the article page - they shouldn't be there on the homepage. Glad to know I'm not the only one that feels this way!~~Tina S~~
I, too, am one of the once-silent majority. That image was disgusting. Whoever removed it has my sincerest thanks. Frankly, if it was a good image, it would have more defenders. This idea that 'only complainers complain' is nonsense. And all you self-righteous jerks who think that ticking off a large minority is somehow a good thing... please, don't work on the main page. We don't want you to. 128.135.108.86 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC) (Edit: changed majority to minority. 128.135.108.86 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC))
I think a reduction of the picture size is a reasonable compromise, it greatly reduces the impact of the image. otocan
I'd say swap it with this one, as it's harmless and shows the EFFECT of the disease, rather than just what it looks like. More informative in my opinion. MightyMoose22 13:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone undid my removal and put the squicky picture back up there. I just changed it to Image:Corneal topography right ax.jpg instead; while it doesn't illustrate the condition quite as clearly, that's the point. I thought about using the Kc simulation picture instead, but when made small enough to fit on the FA section of the home page, I felt it was too vague. - Brian Kendig 13:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
What the question boils down to is this: Should a visitor to the Wikipedia home page be presented with an image which he is likely to find repulsive? (I feel it's safe to assume that a lot of people may find this image repulsive; if you disagree and think most people won't bat an eye at it, please speak up.) Does Wikipedia have a responsibility to acquaint homepage visitors with the details of today's Featured Article even if the details might be repulsive? My answer to this would be no; I see no obligation to put the repulsive image on the home page. As long as it's still in the article, that's not censorship. - Brian Kendig 14:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The state of affairs involving this image helps to highlight how strange Wikipedia's policies on censorship is. The policy is odd in the sense that without logical censorship of pointlessly "grotesque" images, a large proportion of learners and people striving for information (i.e. Children and people who might be sensitive to such images), cannot take advantage of Wikipedia. It's a policy which doesn't make Wikipedia accessible to all, but only accessible to people over 18 or 21, who happen to not get squeamish over such graphic images.
It's often said pictures can be a thousand words. In this case 33 words: the initial first sentence. Perhaps that shows how pointless it is to have such an image on the front page. 172.209.131.104 15:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does have a history of where it would censor images. For instance, when the swastika was the featured article, the image was of a Nazi swastika was originally used and it was changed to the Hindu image to be less offensive. Behun 15:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll add a few words here as one of the principal authors of the article and the one who nominated it for the front page. There was never any intention whatsoever to cause people repulsion and it is regrettable that this turned out to be the case. I actually have keratoconus: it's not even a rare condition. -- BillC 16:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I choose education over censorship anyday. Ignorance leads to trouble. Read history -- Monotonehell 17:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep it. All arguments have been stated, just wanted to chime in in support.-- Zambaccian 21:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The way that some people cannot tell the difference between sensitivity based on good taste and real censorship is very sad. This picture should not have been shown out of respect for the squeamish, but it is all to clear that people with gross out tastes do not have any respect for those who feel differently. Chicheley 15:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I came across this arguement by chance, because I never expected anyone would be anything other than facinated by that picture... I think the arguement that mostly people who don't like it will go to the discussion and complain... everyone I know who saw that picture thought it was interesting and not "disgusting" ... I know I'm a few days late but I wanted to add my support anyway Misterniceguy7 14:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The current image for the featured article (the diagram) is ridiculously dull, uninformative, and confusing to the average reader. You can't read the axes, or the words, or anything. Even at "full size", it's only 173px wide. Whereas the original image made it clear exactly what the disorder was, this image tells you nothing. What's the point?
Also Raul654 said further up that the eyeball image is final. Please respect his decision. We don't need to revert war over the side profile of a person about to put in a contact lens, who happens to have a disorder.
The only thing that is making people squeamish is seeing an eye exposed to whatever possible dangers their brains can and do imagine, an eye that they can't close. We should censor an image for the mental pictures that people create?
This is NOT a picture of medical imagery. If you walked by someone with this disorder as he was putting in his contact lenses, you'd see this exact same image. — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-06-05 15:29
See my comment above. -- BillC 17:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
PLEASE get rid of that photo --or crop it to the part of the eyeball that's relevant. The whole "popping eyeball" thing on the mainpage is excessive and gross. Why not just do a feature on the asshole and use that photo that's running around. It really turned me off when I went to the mainpage, and I know it must be disturbing to most people visiting --and it isn't apparently necessary, if I'm reading the summary right. I love all the "OMG, you must not be serious about wikipedia if you don't like the photo on the mainpage" comments...seriously, what is up with that attitude? -- Bobak 17:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you all get my comment? Why not crop the photo to the actual eyeball instead of the gratuitous parts around it (the parts that are what are actually creeping people). The stretched eyelid above and below has nothing, nothing to do with the subject. I have yet to see someone explain that. Hah, have your eyeball and eat it to :-p -- Bobak 19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with the majority of the people here. This image is disturbing, to say the least, and I think by the very nature that there are about a hundred or more people complaining about it shows that there are a lot more who don't write here very disturbed by it. This isn't censorship, this is just 'can we find a less squeamish picture to put up'? I'm sure the article's great, and there seemed to be several good pictures in it, but that picture is just too much for the main page. 24.60.193.70 20:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I happen to be used to seeing pictures of medical conditions, some of which should be labelled with warnings. That's probably why the eye picture didn't shock me. But I recognise that some people would be shocked by it. I suggest that the guidelines for the use of images of nudity/genitalia/whatever are updated to include medical imagery. There is a grey area, and some people are more easily shocked than others. That is why there should be a guideline somewhere on the use of medical imagery that has the potential to shock people. Carcharoth 21:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm more offended by the way this mess has been handled by administrators. The condescension fairly drips off this page. Very little effort at building a consensus. -- squirrel 21:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Just one final note. I've tallied up the responses, and there are about 45 posters who are vehemently against posting the image, 5 for vehemently keeping it, 10 for keeping it but expressing no strong opinion, and 2-3 of no opinion. 24.60.193.70 22:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
There's now a new Featured Article on the home page, and so this issue is dead; but I wanted to make two comments for the record because I believe the problem has been misrepresented in the discussion above. One: it's not about offending people, a picture of an eye is not offensive; it's about being tasteful and considerate to people who would come to Wikipedia and not expect to be grossed out by an image suddenly presented before them. Two: This is not the best possible image by which to illustrate the problem, because the photo is of someone's eye being held open by fingers, the skin around it being pulled back - THAT is what makes the photo grotesque. If it had been a closeup of a normal eye being held open that way, it still would have been squickish. If the photo of the diseased eye had not had the skin being pulled back from it, I believe it would have been an acceptable photo for use on the home page. - Brian Kendig 00:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The article is too grotesque to be on the main page, please change the article or at least take off the picture, thank you.-- Andy 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I've uploaded a new version of the picture. It's a minor change but it may be slightly less objectionable. If anyone likes it, feel free to use this version in the article. Shawnc 04:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I object to this disgusting, horrific krazy kat that is on the main page. Wocka-wocka-wocka! -- Bobak 00:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
South park was mocking scientoligy nott promoting it-- Andy 11:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, my article for Fuck (film) was denied DYK status because it was considered offensive, and while Wikipedia is not censored, a potentially offensive image should be replaced if it does not cause the article to be less relevant, informative, or accurate. Cigarette 16:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me for butting in here, but as a long time reader (but not a contributor) and, yes, fan of Wikipedia, I am quite frankly appalled at this whole "Thine eye offends me" debate. I understand that as scholarly bookworm types you may have trouble dealing with reality. But it's a picture of an eye. I do appreciate all the hard work you folks have put into Wikipedia. I, for one, am certainly much more knowledgeable about the world thanks to you. But I am shocked that you would spend so much time and effort on such an utterly trivial matter. Personally, I read Wikipedia for the raw undiluted facts, not for some pre-digested pablum that Mommy and Daddy think won't upset my innocent 3-yr old mind too much. If I wanted that, I'd go to disney.com
</rant>
-wisefool
ps - I'm almost tempted to start my own "Freepedia - The Uncensored Version"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.17.74 ( talk • contribs)
probably because she could not comprehend what she was seeing, ansd i dont think a 5 year old could care at all about eye diseases so i believe u made that story up-- Andy 17:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
There is work to be done on wikipedia, is it like a job, that sucks i thought u could edit what u want when u want-- The Nation 17:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
volunteering sucks, especially for something that doesnt care how you feel, it just cares about its namesake to protect-- The Nation 19:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
What of this horrible picture of a man on the frontpage? Graven images! Wikipedia is full of idolaters --BURN THEM (it?)!!!1!111one! --18:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
WORLD CUP?! There is only one cup, and it is the holy grail, there is only one football, and it's American. I am offended!!! -- Bobak 00:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The devanagri version of hindi is spelt wrong. It reads "Hanedee" rather than Hindi. Seems like I can't edit it.
Thought that this should be on the main page Peruvian national election, 2006. The second round was held yesterday (June 4) and Ollanta Humala has already conceded the election which means that former Peruvian President Alan Garcia is President-elect of Peru.-- Jersey Devil 10:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Serbia has formally acknowledged the breakup of S&M: [5]. Perhaps the "in the news" item on Montenegro should be recast to announce the country's formal breakup? -- Jfruh ( talk) 16:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
In The News should be updated a lot faster, effort goes into updating articles for ITN so it would be nice if there was some quicker movement from admins. -- Midnight tonight 04:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Why is the fact that the world is prophecised to end today not on here?! - furthermore I think that in general wikipedia is quite weak in that regard - see Number of the Beast and Nostradamus- yeh and you just wait - the sky will turn to flame and the apocolypse will come when the antichrist rises, only 8 hours 26 minutes left! - you'll see! Benjaminstewart05 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Everyone repeat after me: That's great, it starts with an earthquake, birds and snakes, an aeroplane - Lenny Bruce is not afraid. Raul654 15:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it here yet??? - I'm in GMT which is widely regarded as 0 so it might start here - so seven hours and twenty one minute left!! - good luck! - get away from the coast and onto high ground - lol. Benjaminstewart05 15:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been playing REM and " O Fortuna" all day :) — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-06-06 17:48
For some reason the link on the front page for the Battle of Normandy isn't working - in the "on this day..." box Sotakeit 16:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
It's linked to the article's edit page instead of the article itself. MartinMcCann 16:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The Czechoslovak Constitution mentioned should link to the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth-of-May_Constitution
I think the pic is too gross for a main page pic. Its an intestine polyp.. yuck ... andrewkeith80 08:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It's amazing how diseased internal organs only garner one complaint while a picture of an eye filled the page with discussion. -- Monotonehell 15:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
This is false information. Muhammed simply completed the message of delivering the message of Islam to the world. Before Muhammed , there were many other prophets of God such as Adam, Ibrahim (Abraham), Isa (Jesus) etc. Please correct this piece of misinformation
Muhammad is clearly the founder of Islam and anything else such as the views stated above are purely POV. Articles should mention that Muhammad is viewed not as the founder but as the final prophet of Islam within the belief itself. Also, whether or not Islam recognises older prophets has no bearing on the fact that Islam simply did not exist until Muhammad founded it - regardless of Muslim claims to be the original religion ( class under "religious belief" rather than "historical fact"). siarach 17:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps: "Wikipedia-links: the world to gather"? Verrekijker 10:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The Page should be better surfable bei the keyboard, because it is faster, like:
like the cursor should be in the search field when you access the page or when you found a page. it would be nice, that after you searched for some word sou could instandly tab through the available posible pages. Or to have some shutcuts to make browsing faster
That is just a
For this we crash the servers? :-) Skittle 14:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Tell Wikipedia it's welcome.-
G
a
n
g
staEB-
15:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Please get it off the front page as one of Wikipedia most notorious critics recently published a vicious article accusing Wikipedians of being self-important and we don't want to give the scoundrel ammunition.
Osomec
17:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
What was the code for that bar thing that said "Wikipedia thanks its contributors for writing 1000 featured articles? I need it for the WarWiki. (That was not a spam. I seriously need it). -- Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 20:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Today's Selected anniversaries box is really misleading. It's a picture of an event: Challenger exploding, implying that Challenger exploded today. Which it didn't. Melchoir 00:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Could we get the intro for today's featured article fixed? According to WP:MoS#Acronyms and abbreviations, United States should be abbreviated U.S. (note the periods or full stops). Right now it is used both ways, US and U.S. in the same paragraph. Dismas| (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The blurb for today's featured article says: Wisconsin ... currently functions as a museum ship at the Nauticus National Maritime Center in Norfolk, Virginia. Wisconsin ... is currently awaiting donation for use as a museum ship. The article says this, too. I don't understand - is she a museum ship now, or will she become a museum ship? - Brian Kendig 04:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Woohoo, one thousand featured articles. Woo hoo! Eyeball kid 04:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The current mark-up language (linebreaks mine):
<font face="verdana,arial,helvetica"><b>The English-language Wikipedia thanks its contributors for writing <span class="plainlinks"> <a href="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_Announces_Thousandth_Featured_Article" class='external text' title="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_Announces_Thousandth_Featured_Article">one thousand featured articles</a></span>.</b></font>
This is awful! It uses the deprecated font tag which will make the main page fail validation. It also hardcodes fonts, which I frown upon (all other fonts in the Monobook skin use "sans-serif" as font to ensure that people can choose which font they want to use).
Please change it into this:
<span class="plainlinks" style="font-weight: bold;">The English-language Wikipedia thanks its contributors for writing <a href="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_Announces_Thousandth_Featured_Article" class='external text' title="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_Announces_Thousandth_Featured_Article">one thousand featured articles</a>.</span>
It would make the text use the default font (which is "sans-serif") while still being valid XHTML. —Michiel Sikma 「 Gebruiker/ Overleg」 08:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I found the following in the main page:
" ..that Reverend William Mitchell was an Anglican missionary, and the first ordained
person to provide religious services in the Swan Valley area ... "
The words "religious services" should not be used in this context as there are many religions including the religions of australians before the westerners came to Australia. The right use should be "christian religious services".
As I cannot edit the main page myself, I request you to attend to this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.54.176.109 ( talk • contribs) .
Wikipedia exercises bias and is slanted towards 'negative western popular beleif'. The practices are reminiscent to totalitarian propagandists, that censor any information that challenges their political beleifs. I would not trust this source of information due to it's editors 'gang' mentality. As well as their 'removal' of information outright without valid reason. Their ignorance of misifnormation and pop culture facts that are not 'truthful' place the validity of this site as anything more then a popular medium is certain. This site is more about politics then it is about spreading truthful information. The systems used to catagorize information are often 'discriminatory' especially in favour of western practices and Eurocentric and American-Centric bias. The most severe practices are outright deletion much like ftp deleters, and claiming information is 'nonsense' or 'original': where the first is an outright attack without valid reason and the second is plainly political for not liking or agreeing with what is stated without giving any valid reason. "All comments are original interpretations of other information." Where something is completely derived or self sourced then it is understood to be 'original sourced'. However, in the case of an article being composed from excerpts of something else, it is no more original then other works, thus disputable; however outright deletion with no reasoning other then stating an item is original, in the case of using a source document. Such practices are false practices. The censoring done by wikipedia is common practice, and appears to be politically motivated. I would not use this source for any unbiased works, as this is an extermely biased and censoring site. Don't let the anyone can edit or contribute line at face value. Many times any additions to the information pages are removed, often without any reason other then personal attacks or 'incorrect' editing, in the form of falsely stating something is something that it isn't such as the case of original works. This site politically censors, not for information validity reasons, but for political reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.167.147 ( talk • contribs)
It isn't about 'liking' it is about providing truthful information.
Sorry to be a fuss pot, but as the 1,000 articles have already been created, surely it should read as a thankyou "for having created 1,000 articles". I just thought that I might bring it up Lofty 15:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Can we put something in the Main Page Current Events section about net neutrality? Its of vested interest to all of us, and we need to make sure that the discussion is available to those who come looking for it (and even those who arent looking for it, thus the CE addition request). I think that the HoR defeat last night provides enough media coverage to justify it.
I've noticed a lot of traffic on this page is caused by people misunderstanding the purpose of the ITN section on the main page. ITN is not WikiNews. Would renaming the header help? That is if we can think of a better, more explanitory title. Something like "Current events" (where it links to already); "Articles in the news"; "Current affairs"; "Hot items" ; "Hot articles"; "In flux"; "Happening now"; "Ronald the hampster" (Okay not the last one. These suck a bit, just throwing a few out there) -- Monotonehell 18:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
From Did You Know: "That a circumferentor was an important tool to surveyors for mapping the western frontier?" The western frontier of where? The U.S. of course, but other countries also have western frontiers. Please amend it. 62.31.55.223 19:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)