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 80 | ← | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | → | Archive 90 |
I wonder how hard it would be to create a program like this, like Mechapixel did. Just have a list of all the unadopted new users, and let the experienced ones, (say, 2 months joined), choose one to mentor. They would answer any questions the user had, one on one, using email, or their respective talk pages or IM screennames. This way, a new user wouldn't have to wait so long to get that burning question answered. Just a thought.
WiiWillieWiki
22:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
in "On this Day" for Dec 4th, it says "1639 - English astronomer Jeremiah Horrocks made the first observation of a transit of Venus (pictured)." Taken literally this might be interpreted that this picture is an actual photo taken by Horrocks. Could that get clarified? Spebudmak 01:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Are there any strong objections to my changing the picture illustrating Down syndrome on the main page? Some have brought up the point on the image talk page that this picture does not really do a good job of illustrating the condition. It just shows a child drilling a table. I think Image:Down Syndrome Karyotype.png would be a much better replacement as this scientifically illustrates the cause of the phenomenon. I don't object to the use of Image:Drill.jpg in the article, but I think the other one is simply more appropriate for our main page. Irongargoyle 01:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I've looked through the wiki code of Main Page, can't find how the link was added. 219.234.136.51 14:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm very new to Wikipedia, but I find it to be a great source of information. In my experience, many of the "information" and encyclopeida sites have jumped on the bandwagon of maximizing the use of video and sound clips but provide little real information. Wikipedia gives you a lot of real information. However, to me, I find the search function very weak. I look up many words for which I don't know the correct spelling. Many times Wiki cannot find the word, so I have to jump to Google, put in my best guess of the spelling, get the correct spelling and then jump back to Wiki. There should be a better way. If this was not the correct place to post this, tell me where I should have posted it. I chose MAINPAGE because it is the entrance into Wiki and a better AI/speller suggester would better help people find what they want and would be a good thing to do for a better new year. -So you have my IP address, what'ya gonna do with it? 69.1.59.67 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)REH
Help someone!!! I can't find the source of the bad image on the very top of the definition of macedonia page. Someone help!!!! --Geekler A Segway Geek 01:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Other discussions on this topic are here, here, here and here. Please add more if you find them. Someone may wish to consolidate all these disparate discussions into one location. Carcharoth 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
(merged into relevant section by Carcharoth 12:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone keeps vandalising the Definition of Macedonia page by inserting multiple images of a penis on the page. For some reason, this vandalism cannot be reverted. People have raised the problem on the article's talk page but no action has been taken. -- Damac 12:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You should address the persistent (and important to many contributors) question of why you suddenly have an army of editors deleting articles - as opposed to devoting their time to, say, editing article content and improving layout / proofreading. This subject was recently discussed (somewhat lightheartedly) in a New York Times article. So why are y'all doing this? Are you trying to alleviate a bandwidth shortage? Why so much eagerness to excise others' contributions of so many articles? Why give a crap so dang much, and who exactly grants these editors their positions of authority anyway? If there's a logical explanation for why this has become a priority, please explain.
Obviously, I have an opinion - I quarrel with the motivation and the execution of the new Wikipedia deletion surge. If Wikipedia isn't a suitable place to record and explain small bits of our world (such as passing pop culture phenomena, for instance) then where is? I have read the deletion guidelines, the policies on notoriety, but yet I still see, routinely, these guidelines applied arbitrarily, subjects of great magnitude of interest deleted, while other indisputably lessor subjects remain enshrined the hallowed halls of Wikipedialand. And this biased, imperfect deletion policy is towards what end?
And then all the lingo of "salting" to denote banning subjects - is nothing if not mean-spirited and elitist. To deny the public the right to write about any subject -ever-again- reeks of a betrayal of what this thing is supposed to be about - a democratic submission policy about collecting knowledge - in all its pros and cons, messy splendor. That a Wikipedia cabal has been deputized to delete and ban the submission of certain subjects (and that anyone would applaud the act) seems to serve little purpose, and certainly not a democratic one. 24.199.84.215 17:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a suggestion about the placing of the pictures in the 'Did you know...', 'In the news' and 'On this day...' sections on the main page: Wouldn't it be better if the pictures in those 3 sections appeared just to the right of their respective entries instead of the top right corner? I sometimes find it hard to immediately match the picture to the corresponding entry in those sections. Take today(december 9th) for example, the 'in the news' section is showing a picture of Hugo Chavez, but immediately to the left of the picture are entries about Ethiopia and Iraq, which has little or nothing to do with Chavez, but the Chavez entry is 2nd last in that section way at the bottom. I don't know what it would look like if changes were made, but it's just my suggestion. LG-犬夜叉 00:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to nominate the Main Page as a featured article? Simply south 01:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Go to Wikipedia's article and you will see VERY inappropiate pictures! PLEASE IMMEDIATLEY BAN THE USER Stellaartois AT ONCE! HE'S VERY TRICKY! EVERY TIME WE TRY TO FIX IT, HE PUTS UP ANOTHER PHOTO! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.122.3.19 ( talk) 01:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
Excuse me, but is there a general discussion page talking about what we should on Wikipedia, etc.? I tried talking in here... But i suppose this is just a page that talks about the main page ALONE, so is there any other page that we can talk about what to add on Wikipedia, etc. ??? Dragong4 05:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe his account isn't tagged yet. He's already done WP:CVU and probably the Bobby Boulders user page as usual. What a pest. -- CommKing 23:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
To whom it may concern,
I have my enterprise search engine installed within my network, and is it possible for me to set my search engine to crawl into wikipedia and index it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alanay ( talk • contribs) 04:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Where do you find who the author is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.102.127.60 ( talk) 04:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
On November 24th the sidebar was updated to link to Wikipedia:Featured content rather than Wikipedia:Featured articles. Given that this link is now included on every page would it make since to remove the 'featured content' link from the Main page or replace it with something else? This link is currently displayed on the upper right portion of the page in the section that looks like:
Any thoughts on what other link might make sense there? A Portals link seems like one possibility. -- CBD 13:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
"are sections of the Constitution of India, that prescribe the fundamental"
Is that one really necessary? -- Zeality 01:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Any thoughts on putting a link to a featured Wikipedia user on the main page? Some people have really good userpages with lots of great links. Dlodge 03:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The bit on Kofi Anan and his speech is loaded in my opinion. There is no article regarding his speech, yet someone took the liberty of noting how critical he was of the United States. He didn't talk about anything else? Again, his stance on the US might actually be noteworthy if there was an article to properly back it up - it's editorializing otherwise. -- Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I know im not meant to post this here but i couldnt find the correct place to post it. Anyway there is a racist caption to a picture in the article on the human face (i think the page is just titled 'face'). I dont know how to remove it, but i hope one of you will do it. Also it might be gone by the time i type this but theres a giant nude picture on this talk page at the top!? I found that quite funny, but unacceptable of course. Harvestein
dont see anything os that sort. 68.111.172.8
Some vandal has made it so that viewing when this talk page, a VERY rude picture\painting appears. Please get rid of it. Simply south 12:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It happened several times: [5]; [6]; [7]. The culprit is here. Carcharoth 12:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope, vandalism is still there, some dirty pervert decided to leave it there. I suggest an IP ban. 85.12.80.128 13:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Unregistered User
redirects to something eles.-- Taida 01:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't they be in the news. Biggest police investigation in the UK for 30 years so I hear. 82.163.157.251 09:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
What you need to do is write the appropriate article and nominate it at WT:ITN. Zocky | picture popups 03:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyway it is big news in the USA, for your information! It was on the front page of CNN and the second story on ABC news. Steven 84.69.217.56 17:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I am just a frequent reader who thought I should report what apparently seems to be vandalism on the article about Kori Annan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.185.26.92 ( talk) 12:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
Excuse me? It is a Holocaust denial conference - sponsored by a regime that openly wants to destroy Israel. NYU has conferences "examining" the Holocaust, discussing the functionalism vs. intentionalism and how it compares to other genocides. The Iranian conference is an openly antisemitic attempt to deny one of the greatest crimes in history (and is organized by one someone aiming to be one of the greatest criminals in history). Saying it "examines" the Holocaust is deliberate obfuscation at worst and belligerent ignorance at best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.162.55.10 ( talk) 14:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
I beg to differ. There is nothing legitimate about the conference, and nothing about the existence of the Holocaust to "review." The conference's purpose is "to deny" the Holocaust - an openly evil act. It's like David Duke (who is at the conference, not coincedentially) "reviewing" whether blacks have a higher propensity towards crime then whites - the very act of saying the question can be legitimately "reviewed" grants it legitimacy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.162.55.10 ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The fact that a news agency, probably reproducing Iranian propoganda, emphatically incorrectly describes an event does not mean we have to incorrectly describe the event. We are presumably all intelligent people and are capable of assessing whether certain statements are patently false, or belligerently neutral. The fact that something is described in a certain way in a press release or whatever does not mean that it is a legitimate view. A similar controversy arose with C-Span recently, where they planned to feature a Holocaust denier to "give the other side of the debate" after a lecture on the Holocaust. They finally concluded, very correctly, that there is no other side of the debate and that "truth is not balanced by falsehood."
Would we describe a KKK conference discussing, say, "black inferiority and whether lynching is necessary to keep blacks in line and how blacks liked slavery" as "reviewing African-American society" if a headline, no doubt reproduced from a press release, said as much? Are we incapable of determining whether a statement is grossly false and evil? I repeat: the Iranian conference's stated purpose is to deny the Holocaust, an emphatically evil and antisemtic act, and uncritically reproducing the claim that there is something legitimate to "review" is factually incorrect. It is also morally obtuse, but that apparently is not a relevant issue.
That is not true - it is emphatically a conference of Holocaust deniers. The several rabbis you mention, which apparently are succesful in convincing the world that this is a legitimate conference, are members of the Neturei Karta - a tiny splinter group of ultra-orthodox Jews who are militantly opposed to the existence of Israel, to the extent that they openly support Hamas and praised Ahmedinejad's vow to destroy Israel. I mean literally "militantly opposed" - they fought on the Arab side in the 1948 War of Independence. They quite literally hate most Jews in the world, namely the secular ones and the Israel-supporting ones.
The fact that the conference organizers may "claim to review its particulars" does not mean that they are not engaging in Holocaust denial. The standard claim of Holocaust deniers such as David Irving is that indeed several hundred thousand Jews were killed by the Einsatzgruppen, but that the mass killing of several million Jews, mostly in gas chambers, NEVER TOOK PLACE. To argue that the true sum of Jewish dead in the Holocaust was 5.7 million is legitimate. To claim that the total number is 400,000 because the gas chambers never existed, and the Jews made it up, is an evil, antisemitic lie and a denial of the Holocaust. And what could a "review of the particulars" be about? Especially at a conference attended by actual notorious Holocaust deniers, held by a regime that sponsored a Holocaust-mocking cartoon contest? Somehow I doubt they are going to have a learned debate with Raul Hilberg over functionalism vs. intentionalism.
I see that the propaganda has suceeded in opening up the debate (since, as you say "they claim to review its particulars, not its very existence") on an issue in which there is no debate and to claim otherwise is both false and evil. Have we abandoned all critical thinking to take a false, evil claim to be worthy of legitimate review? Are we all belligerantly ignorant?
Dab - do you believe it is legitimate to question whether several million Jews were killed and if the gas chambers existed? And if so (and I hope to God the answer is no), is this a mere "review" or a denial of the Holocaust?
I repeat: this is a Holocaust denial conference, whatever reasonable-sounding title they give it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minjitthemidget ( talk • contribs)
'examine' to '" review"', introducing the scare quotes. It is obvious that little else than a full-fledged Holocaust denial session would be hosted by Ahmadinejad. Still, since the conference only just opened, "it" had no time to actullay 'deny' anything, did it. If the closing note of the conference should be "Holocaust is a fairy tale", there will still be ample time to rename the article appropriately. My point is that "a conference" usually does not make any claims, it is the individual participants that do. dab (𒁳) 18:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
That would be a start. I genuinely do not understand the issue. Something like "claiming to deny the Holocaust" is an accurate description of the event - on an issue where factual accuracy is of towering moral importance. Minjitthemidget 18:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
So we both agree that the title is incorrect and I believe I have demonstrated that it gives a grossly, evilly distorted misreprentation of an evil conference. This is not a mere euphemism - it is a distortion and attempt at disguising something evil by making it sound legitimate. Why not "for the sake of brevity," let alone truth, call it what it is? Otherwise we are complicit in the distortion. Minjitthemidget 18:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no little pop-up bubble to indicate that the scare quotes are scare quotes. Especially in a news headline, quotes are taken to be quotations of things, without the skepticism implied by scare quotes. I frankly still don't see why "conference aimed at denying the Holocaust" is not the best option. It accurately describes the event. It does not in anyway mislead. Frankly, it does not even add a moral judgment; it simply describes the event accurately and lets the reader draw his/her conclusions. "Review the Holocaust" has all the severe problems I discuss above. Minjitthemidget 20:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Please people, we're writing a NPOV encyclopedia, not a "moral point of view" encyclopedia. It's completely irrelevant for our purposes whether what they're doing is good or bad, honest or dishonest, science or mumbo-jumbo. We don't need to judge their actions, we don't need to drive in the point that holocaust denial is bad. We are not an advocacy website. We just need to accurately describe what they're doing and readers will decide themselves whether they think that's a good or a bad thing. Zocky | picture popups 03:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I will say this once again: it is false to say you are "reviewing" something you are denying and lying about. I completely agree with the statement "We just need to accurately describe what they're doing." That means describing, quite accurately, it as Holocaust denial. NPOV does not imply printing false statements. And, incidentally, we are not necessarily neutral or not in need to judge their actions. We should strive for that, to be sure, but all discussions and summaries of controversial actions inherently tend towards bias of one sort or another through choice of words. We need to try to accurately describe events, not use the incorrect terms used by a government attempting to hoodwink the world by using reasonable, anodyne words for something unreasonable and disgusting. Iran is exploiting us and our propensity for ostensible neutrality to make Holocaust denial sound legitimate. Again: would we report a conference on the ways slavery was better for African Americans as a "review" of slavery, if David Duke described it as such? I suggest that the answer is, or should be, no. Minjitthemidget 05:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
IMO putting this bit of irritating "news" on the Wikipedia main page is just giving a stage to lunacy and idiotism, not to mention blind hatred. This whole "conference" is a big joke and if there was a section on the main page for various curiosities and weird phenomena, it would belong there - definitely not on the first paragraph of the news. If president Ahmeidnijad decided to go on a freak show circus tour would that be news? I don't think so! So IMO this whole "news" bit should be removed from the main page. Find another place for it. Tweekerd 13:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It's a recently updated article on an item in the news, and belongs in the ITN section. The conference itself is not explictly to deny the Holocaust, and several rabbis and other groups which affirm the Holocaust have agreed to attend, so the demand that we headline it in any other way is going nowhere. Much of the above smacks of misdirected anger - if you're angry that Mahmoud Imonajihad is hosting a Holocaust revisionist conference, tell him to stop it, don't tell us to either ignore it or lie about it. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I will say this yet again: let's report it correctly, and indeed not ignore it or lie about it. That means describing it accurately as a Holocaust denial conference. Or is our policy to acquiese in someone else's propaganda without any minimal assessment of our own? And regarding the Rabbis: They are all fanatical anti-zionists who have praised Ahmedinejad (not "Imonajihad") for vowing to destroy Israel. One actually does explicitly deny the Holocaust, because he is insane. As I said, they hate nearly all Jews, namely the non-ultra-orthodox and the ultra-orthodox who support Israel. In other words, they are de facto antisemites. These freaks being there should not give license to a Holocaust denial conference to be called something else. 65.162.55.10 14:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The 'Did You Konw…?' section on the main page needs a rethink. Such a section should include facts that are in some way surprising or thought-provoking, not just obscure. The way it is now, the only thought likely to be provoked is: "Why should I care?" For example (using facts that happen to come to mind right now): "Did you know that Nicephorus was a Byzantine emperor of the 9th Century?" [Boring] "Did you know that Nicephorus was the only Byzantine emperor killed in battle, apart from the very last emperor?" [Mildly interesting] "Did you know that the skull of the Byzantine emperor Nicephorus was made into a drinking vessel by the Bulgar khan Krum?" [Much better] Patrick Neylan 00:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Patrick Neylan
WT:DYK is the policy page for DYK. suggestions welcome. Thanks, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 02:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
"Did you know that Nicephorus was a Byzantine emperor of the 9th Century?" [Boring] (In your opinion). "Did you know that Nicephorus was the only Byzantine emperor killed in battle, apart from the very last emperor?" [Mildly interesting] (In your opinion) My point is just because you find certain articles that appear in this section boring it doesnt make the section crap. Its all a matter of perspective, i find theres days/weeks where nothing at all on the main page interests me. Anyway, on to the main reason i was going to add a comment. How about actually putting a link to the article in the DYK stub? Theres a rather interesting one today, Did i know that such and such got sunk to a depth of... to stop the nazi's from gaining nuclear weapons. Know i didnt. And it seems ill never know, because as theres plenty of links in there, they all go to the article for the single word rather than an article that the stub refers to. Squad'nLeedah 22:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The name should be changed to "Do you care...?" — Centrx→ talk • 03:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It's old news already. John Hyams 17:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
it pisses me off. sure, you can delete stuff that is irrelevant, but you dont need to act condesending about it. if wikipedia isnt a viable source to be cited for reports, why not let people have a little fun? i know people try to use this site as an encyclopedia, myself included, but i would still laugh if i read something that was obviously a joke. if im not mistaken, wikiality.com was created so people could do just that, and so people would leave wikipedia alone, but the information is so dry and hard to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.153.250 ( talk • contribs) 14 December 2006
what im saying is that if someone deletes content and you replace it, thats okay. but why cant someone post something humorous once in awhile? and dont you dare direct me to some crappy wikipedia entry on the science of laughter. i hardly think comedy should be considered a form of vandalism.
Did you know "...that Texas politician Maury Maverick, Jr. killed a bill to sentence convicted communists to death by adding a poison pill amendment to sentence suspected communists to life imprisonment?" Poor choice of words (killed a bill) when talking about actual death also. Also should say USA Texas politician. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.144.251.120 ( talk) 01:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
Can someone please remove the bisected penis from the front page? Thanks. - MSTCrow 06:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually I'm going to suggest that some admin blank the main page -- T- rex 06:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Please fix it wtf!! im disgusted
Looks like someone got it off... thanks to whoever you are! Arynknight 06:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I think everyone knows what I'm talking a out when I say....WHAT THE HELL?! Whydoit ( Why... do it?) 06:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
That was absolutely awful. SpikeZoft 06:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear God that made me sick. The Wookieepedian 06:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The image was deleted, but seems to be back...somebody needs to do an earth-salting deletion, I think. Its Image:Treecutoff.jpg (Obvious warning: if you haven't already seen it, you don't want to.-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It was incredible, really - survived on the main page for at least five minutes. G Rose 06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
How would the villain responsible be able to hide their edits and prevent the showing of the history? It is impossible to edit this talk page without edit conflict, btw.
Valley2city
06:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm rather inexperienced and not quite sure how to resolve this issue, that is, a "ModBlog" photo covering the entire right corner of the main page. If someone could resolve this problem that would be great!
they just deleted the image, the link is still there. Thanks anyway, whoever. R OY YO Я 06:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Uh yeah. it's back... R OY YO Я 06:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone please get rid of that picture...it can't be that hard moderators!
I think it is a virus, admins should block the uploader(s). Seems they change the file name. - 203.87.129.111 06:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
What bug me now is...how did they do it? there must be a security hole or something the like somewhere on wiki.... Whydoit ( Why... do it?) 06:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
what the hell just happened 71.58.245.168 06:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Check the templates-- DaveOinSF 06:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Could an admin remove the redlink to a image at the top, just below the donations line? I know this is small, but still in a visible place. Thanks. 24.20.69.240 06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Can this vandal be blocked? OneCyclone 06:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I saw a very disgusting picture showing a penis in the main page. Luckily, I was not browsing Wiki in public. It was fixed right before I start typing these words. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.103.220.136 ( talk) 06:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
I think the offending picture is off
There appears to be a picture of what I think is a deformed bleeding penis on the main page and I was wondering if an Admin could remove it. Thanks.-- Flyingcheese 06:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Could the admininstrators explain how did the photo appear in a protected page and who did it? As I can't seem to find any history on that. If it's a loophole on Wikipedia, is there any solution for it? -- Cyktsui 06:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
This link was posted on 4chan: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Treecutoff.jpg must've been done through there, I guess. 71.113.30.206 07:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Good work for whoever found out about 4chan! But looking at history of Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 15 does not provide any clue.... I wonder if the administrator who fixed the problem can let us know what happened. -- Cyktsui 07:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Chinese Wikipedia met the same problem.
In the popular /b/ forum, someone has taken credit. Since most /b/ threads have a life expectancy of 20 minutes, I have archived the post. :: Colin Keigher ( Talk) 07:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I, for one, am not entirely thrilled with the inclusion of the investigation into a serial killer that killed five prostitutes in Ipswich, England. Please tell me if even more heinous incidents in the past, like the Prospect Avenue murders of 2004 in Kansas City (as many as 12 women linked to one murderer; Terrance Gillard is awaiting special trial on those murder charges), BTK, or anything comparable worldwide have been included on the front page before. -- KHill-LTown 01:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
That's it! One more complaint and no one shall have ITN! ;) jokes ;) -- Monotonehell 03:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't get it; why is no one complaining about the Chinese River Dolphin or the election of a president in an unrecognized state that sat on ITN for days? I agree the item is questionable, but I fear we won't be able to please everyone. -- tariqabjotu 20:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a crucial news item, not because of the number of murders but because of the effect they're having in the UK: it's already causing a major debate about the role of the state in the prohibition of drugs, the suppression of prostitution and the combined effects of these policies. It's notable also for the internet angle: one of the arrested suspects has a Myspace page which has been mined by the press for photos and information - first time that's happened in such a major case, though I may be wrong. In short, I think the inclusion of the story has less to do with the fact that five women have been murdered, horrific though that may be, than it has to do with the cultural effect the whole thing is having. Bedesboy 20:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to make major announcements about Wikibooks on the main Wikipedia page? Robinhw 11:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
What about one of your nice boxes with:
Wikibooks! From books for university such as Special Relativity to books for infants such as Big Cats Wikibooks has a book for everyone.
Robinhw 12:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Way doesn't Wikibook fuse with Wikisource, the development would be faster.--Eternal Imortal 16:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
It would be great if there was a very clear way for folks to post comments on featured articles if they want to. I mean a redirect from "discuss this article" to this page whenever a page is featured (or something like that). I inadvertently went to the article's talk page for a featured article to post a comment, and think that was incorrect. I spent something like 20 minutes looking for the right link to post, because I knew it had to be there somewhere. Please consider it. Thank you. NinaEliza ( talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 18:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know where else to go for help because most of my user page was deleted. Can you please restore it to it's original form? Can you also trace the IP that vandalized it. Please and thank you! Season Greetings!-- kitsumiti 19:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay thank you Bryson! I found out the IP of the vndalizer is 216.36.138.14 Can you please give them heck from me? Thanks! -- kitsumiti 19:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay! Thanks everybody! I havn't been here for a while soI can forget a few things. kitsumiti 19:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no particular objection to Britain, but it seems as if we have too many British entries: two entries dealing explicitly with Britain and one that deals with Britain and the future US. However, before I replace one of them (probably Cromwell) with something else significant from December 16 (probably the Polish president assassination), I'd like to see some others' opinions. — Cuivi é nen 01:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Time this took up a bit less space. The bit about donations could be merged with the bit below. 81.168.46.189 10:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't answer my question. Suppose I don't want to donate: it doesn't cause WP any harm to squash that. 81.168.125.50 11:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Please remove the "Donate via PayPal" button on every page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.130.164.38 ( talk) 12:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC).
Why do we not have links to recently deceased notables like the German Wiki? I've always found that very interesting. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 13:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2006 168.215.59.254 ( talk • contribs)
Wangchuck? That's really the name of the Bhutanese royal family? Oh my God ...
Thank God this didn't happen on a weekday. The vandalism would have been off the scale until we protected the article. Daniel Case 19:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The summary says that the English Bill of Rights 1689 asserts positive rights, but the rights listed in the article are all negative ("freedom from") or at least arguably so ("freedom to"). — Tamfang 20:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that it's kind of strange that the "featured articles" text on the main page header is in title caps. I.e. "1198 of which are Featured Articles" instead of "1198 of which are featured articles". Isn't it so that this should just be the latter, i.e. "featured articles", instead of with a capital for every word? function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage): Void 16:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi article?-- Azer Red Si? 17:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Who changes the main page articles? Comperr 05:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Done —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Comperr ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
Just in case anyone noticed... (I didn't!) the sidebar has changed. I've started a little thread at the talk page of the redesign page. Carcharoth 10:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
There should be a way to nominate pictures for the main page without the pics having to be featured first. Although the title is "featured pictures," many stunning and amazing pics are not featured. There should be some sort of a voting process. Seldon1 15:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!
Great job! Now the "search box" is lower on the screen, so I am forced to scroll down to get to it. I am very happy that this change took place. I wish you the best of luck with future changes! Maybe next time the box could change positions or disappear when the mouse pointer hovers above it. The great thing is that, if changes keep making Wikipedia worse, all articles are soon going to end up like what is written above about Dr. R. Vaithilingam (I see that the Vaithilingam part was removed; it was a rambling about some professor in India, written in poor English). 89.120.193.125 21:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem with the sidebar search box positioning is being discused here. I also linked to this above. For now, a good tip (or workaround if you like) for jumping to the search box is using Alt-F. At least this works in Firefox. Other browsers and other operating systems probably have similar shortcuts to jump to a search box, or to places on a page. Carcharoth 00:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that was certainly interesting. It's not everyday you see a vandal actually admit he just vandalized something. In regards to this. Strange. Dooms Day349 23:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
IMO considering this is possible it should just block the edit 84.64.226.4 18:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
When I am not logged in, and and just looking around, the font got smaller between now and , say 3 hours ago. What is going on? -- Lionheart Omega 03:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
...no longer allegedly. -- J o h n O 13:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I've been looking around for a way of citing a permanent URL to the front page for a specific day and can't find any. Is there a way? As far as I can tell, the permanent URL refers to the template rather than the content. But what about if somebody wants to cite a specific combination of articles as they appeared on the front page of the wikipedia on a specific day (as, in fact, I want to right now). IS this possible? dpod 18:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
"that the world's longest lasting lightbulb is 105 years old and has been burning continuously since 1976?"
Does anyone else have a problem with the math here? As far as I am reading this, theres a light bulb thats been lasting for 105 years and its been going since 1976? Or is it very old and 105 years old but has only been used since 1976? Because this is not clear to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.99.207 ( talk) 22:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
I propose a new major wikiproject Wikilanguage or Wiki Linguistics which specializes in the teaching of all languages. I have looked over the internet and have found some sites which do have several of the major languages giving knowledge of learning them but this wuould be huge. This would provide all the information for learning languages such as most of the 250 languages that already have wikipedias. Learning a language is a major infomration source but wikipedia does not have this. Anybody interested in starting this ? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:38, 21 December 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 80 | ← | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | → | Archive 90 |
I wonder how hard it would be to create a program like this, like Mechapixel did. Just have a list of all the unadopted new users, and let the experienced ones, (say, 2 months joined), choose one to mentor. They would answer any questions the user had, one on one, using email, or their respective talk pages or IM screennames. This way, a new user wouldn't have to wait so long to get that burning question answered. Just a thought.
WiiWillieWiki
22:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
in "On this Day" for Dec 4th, it says "1639 - English astronomer Jeremiah Horrocks made the first observation of a transit of Venus (pictured)." Taken literally this might be interpreted that this picture is an actual photo taken by Horrocks. Could that get clarified? Spebudmak 01:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Are there any strong objections to my changing the picture illustrating Down syndrome on the main page? Some have brought up the point on the image talk page that this picture does not really do a good job of illustrating the condition. It just shows a child drilling a table. I think Image:Down Syndrome Karyotype.png would be a much better replacement as this scientifically illustrates the cause of the phenomenon. I don't object to the use of Image:Drill.jpg in the article, but I think the other one is simply more appropriate for our main page. Irongargoyle 01:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I've looked through the wiki code of Main Page, can't find how the link was added. 219.234.136.51 14:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm very new to Wikipedia, but I find it to be a great source of information. In my experience, many of the "information" and encyclopeida sites have jumped on the bandwagon of maximizing the use of video and sound clips but provide little real information. Wikipedia gives you a lot of real information. However, to me, I find the search function very weak. I look up many words for which I don't know the correct spelling. Many times Wiki cannot find the word, so I have to jump to Google, put in my best guess of the spelling, get the correct spelling and then jump back to Wiki. There should be a better way. If this was not the correct place to post this, tell me where I should have posted it. I chose MAINPAGE because it is the entrance into Wiki and a better AI/speller suggester would better help people find what they want and would be a good thing to do for a better new year. -So you have my IP address, what'ya gonna do with it? 69.1.59.67 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)REH
Help someone!!! I can't find the source of the bad image on the very top of the definition of macedonia page. Someone help!!!! --Geekler A Segway Geek 01:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Other discussions on this topic are here, here, here and here. Please add more if you find them. Someone may wish to consolidate all these disparate discussions into one location. Carcharoth 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
(merged into relevant section by Carcharoth 12:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone keeps vandalising the Definition of Macedonia page by inserting multiple images of a penis on the page. For some reason, this vandalism cannot be reverted. People have raised the problem on the article's talk page but no action has been taken. -- Damac 12:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You should address the persistent (and important to many contributors) question of why you suddenly have an army of editors deleting articles - as opposed to devoting their time to, say, editing article content and improving layout / proofreading. This subject was recently discussed (somewhat lightheartedly) in a New York Times article. So why are y'all doing this? Are you trying to alleviate a bandwidth shortage? Why so much eagerness to excise others' contributions of so many articles? Why give a crap so dang much, and who exactly grants these editors their positions of authority anyway? If there's a logical explanation for why this has become a priority, please explain.
Obviously, I have an opinion - I quarrel with the motivation and the execution of the new Wikipedia deletion surge. If Wikipedia isn't a suitable place to record and explain small bits of our world (such as passing pop culture phenomena, for instance) then where is? I have read the deletion guidelines, the policies on notoriety, but yet I still see, routinely, these guidelines applied arbitrarily, subjects of great magnitude of interest deleted, while other indisputably lessor subjects remain enshrined the hallowed halls of Wikipedialand. And this biased, imperfect deletion policy is towards what end?
And then all the lingo of "salting" to denote banning subjects - is nothing if not mean-spirited and elitist. To deny the public the right to write about any subject -ever-again- reeks of a betrayal of what this thing is supposed to be about - a democratic submission policy about collecting knowledge - in all its pros and cons, messy splendor. That a Wikipedia cabal has been deputized to delete and ban the submission of certain subjects (and that anyone would applaud the act) seems to serve little purpose, and certainly not a democratic one. 24.199.84.215 17:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a suggestion about the placing of the pictures in the 'Did you know...', 'In the news' and 'On this day...' sections on the main page: Wouldn't it be better if the pictures in those 3 sections appeared just to the right of their respective entries instead of the top right corner? I sometimes find it hard to immediately match the picture to the corresponding entry in those sections. Take today(december 9th) for example, the 'in the news' section is showing a picture of Hugo Chavez, but immediately to the left of the picture are entries about Ethiopia and Iraq, which has little or nothing to do with Chavez, but the Chavez entry is 2nd last in that section way at the bottom. I don't know what it would look like if changes were made, but it's just my suggestion. LG-犬夜叉 00:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to nominate the Main Page as a featured article? Simply south 01:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Go to Wikipedia's article and you will see VERY inappropiate pictures! PLEASE IMMEDIATLEY BAN THE USER Stellaartois AT ONCE! HE'S VERY TRICKY! EVERY TIME WE TRY TO FIX IT, HE PUTS UP ANOTHER PHOTO! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.122.3.19 ( talk) 01:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
Excuse me, but is there a general discussion page talking about what we should on Wikipedia, etc.? I tried talking in here... But i suppose this is just a page that talks about the main page ALONE, so is there any other page that we can talk about what to add on Wikipedia, etc. ??? Dragong4 05:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe his account isn't tagged yet. He's already done WP:CVU and probably the Bobby Boulders user page as usual. What a pest. -- CommKing 23:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
To whom it may concern,
I have my enterprise search engine installed within my network, and is it possible for me to set my search engine to crawl into wikipedia and index it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alanay ( talk • contribs) 04:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Where do you find who the author is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.102.127.60 ( talk) 04:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
On November 24th the sidebar was updated to link to Wikipedia:Featured content rather than Wikipedia:Featured articles. Given that this link is now included on every page would it make since to remove the 'featured content' link from the Main page or replace it with something else? This link is currently displayed on the upper right portion of the page in the section that looks like:
Any thoughts on what other link might make sense there? A Portals link seems like one possibility. -- CBD 13:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
"are sections of the Constitution of India, that prescribe the fundamental"
Is that one really necessary? -- Zeality 01:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Any thoughts on putting a link to a featured Wikipedia user on the main page? Some people have really good userpages with lots of great links. Dlodge 03:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The bit on Kofi Anan and his speech is loaded in my opinion. There is no article regarding his speech, yet someone took the liberty of noting how critical he was of the United States. He didn't talk about anything else? Again, his stance on the US might actually be noteworthy if there was an article to properly back it up - it's editorializing otherwise. -- Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I know im not meant to post this here but i couldnt find the correct place to post it. Anyway there is a racist caption to a picture in the article on the human face (i think the page is just titled 'face'). I dont know how to remove it, but i hope one of you will do it. Also it might be gone by the time i type this but theres a giant nude picture on this talk page at the top!? I found that quite funny, but unacceptable of course. Harvestein
dont see anything os that sort. 68.111.172.8
Some vandal has made it so that viewing when this talk page, a VERY rude picture\painting appears. Please get rid of it. Simply south 12:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It happened several times: [5]; [6]; [7]. The culprit is here. Carcharoth 12:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope, vandalism is still there, some dirty pervert decided to leave it there. I suggest an IP ban. 85.12.80.128 13:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Unregistered User
redirects to something eles.-- Taida 01:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't they be in the news. Biggest police investigation in the UK for 30 years so I hear. 82.163.157.251 09:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
What you need to do is write the appropriate article and nominate it at WT:ITN. Zocky | picture popups 03:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyway it is big news in the USA, for your information! It was on the front page of CNN and the second story on ABC news. Steven 84.69.217.56 17:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I am just a frequent reader who thought I should report what apparently seems to be vandalism on the article about Kori Annan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.185.26.92 ( talk) 12:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
Excuse me? It is a Holocaust denial conference - sponsored by a regime that openly wants to destroy Israel. NYU has conferences "examining" the Holocaust, discussing the functionalism vs. intentionalism and how it compares to other genocides. The Iranian conference is an openly antisemitic attempt to deny one of the greatest crimes in history (and is organized by one someone aiming to be one of the greatest criminals in history). Saying it "examines" the Holocaust is deliberate obfuscation at worst and belligerent ignorance at best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.162.55.10 ( talk) 14:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
I beg to differ. There is nothing legitimate about the conference, and nothing about the existence of the Holocaust to "review." The conference's purpose is "to deny" the Holocaust - an openly evil act. It's like David Duke (who is at the conference, not coincedentially) "reviewing" whether blacks have a higher propensity towards crime then whites - the very act of saying the question can be legitimately "reviewed" grants it legitimacy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.162.55.10 ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The fact that a news agency, probably reproducing Iranian propoganda, emphatically incorrectly describes an event does not mean we have to incorrectly describe the event. We are presumably all intelligent people and are capable of assessing whether certain statements are patently false, or belligerently neutral. The fact that something is described in a certain way in a press release or whatever does not mean that it is a legitimate view. A similar controversy arose with C-Span recently, where they planned to feature a Holocaust denier to "give the other side of the debate" after a lecture on the Holocaust. They finally concluded, very correctly, that there is no other side of the debate and that "truth is not balanced by falsehood."
Would we describe a KKK conference discussing, say, "black inferiority and whether lynching is necessary to keep blacks in line and how blacks liked slavery" as "reviewing African-American society" if a headline, no doubt reproduced from a press release, said as much? Are we incapable of determining whether a statement is grossly false and evil? I repeat: the Iranian conference's stated purpose is to deny the Holocaust, an emphatically evil and antisemtic act, and uncritically reproducing the claim that there is something legitimate to "review" is factually incorrect. It is also morally obtuse, but that apparently is not a relevant issue.
That is not true - it is emphatically a conference of Holocaust deniers. The several rabbis you mention, which apparently are succesful in convincing the world that this is a legitimate conference, are members of the Neturei Karta - a tiny splinter group of ultra-orthodox Jews who are militantly opposed to the existence of Israel, to the extent that they openly support Hamas and praised Ahmedinejad's vow to destroy Israel. I mean literally "militantly opposed" - they fought on the Arab side in the 1948 War of Independence. They quite literally hate most Jews in the world, namely the secular ones and the Israel-supporting ones.
The fact that the conference organizers may "claim to review its particulars" does not mean that they are not engaging in Holocaust denial. The standard claim of Holocaust deniers such as David Irving is that indeed several hundred thousand Jews were killed by the Einsatzgruppen, but that the mass killing of several million Jews, mostly in gas chambers, NEVER TOOK PLACE. To argue that the true sum of Jewish dead in the Holocaust was 5.7 million is legitimate. To claim that the total number is 400,000 because the gas chambers never existed, and the Jews made it up, is an evil, antisemitic lie and a denial of the Holocaust. And what could a "review of the particulars" be about? Especially at a conference attended by actual notorious Holocaust deniers, held by a regime that sponsored a Holocaust-mocking cartoon contest? Somehow I doubt they are going to have a learned debate with Raul Hilberg over functionalism vs. intentionalism.
I see that the propaganda has suceeded in opening up the debate (since, as you say "they claim to review its particulars, not its very existence") on an issue in which there is no debate and to claim otherwise is both false and evil. Have we abandoned all critical thinking to take a false, evil claim to be worthy of legitimate review? Are we all belligerantly ignorant?
Dab - do you believe it is legitimate to question whether several million Jews were killed and if the gas chambers existed? And if so (and I hope to God the answer is no), is this a mere "review" or a denial of the Holocaust?
I repeat: this is a Holocaust denial conference, whatever reasonable-sounding title they give it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minjitthemidget ( talk • contribs)
'examine' to '" review"', introducing the scare quotes. It is obvious that little else than a full-fledged Holocaust denial session would be hosted by Ahmadinejad. Still, since the conference only just opened, "it" had no time to actullay 'deny' anything, did it. If the closing note of the conference should be "Holocaust is a fairy tale", there will still be ample time to rename the article appropriately. My point is that "a conference" usually does not make any claims, it is the individual participants that do. dab (𒁳) 18:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
That would be a start. I genuinely do not understand the issue. Something like "claiming to deny the Holocaust" is an accurate description of the event - on an issue where factual accuracy is of towering moral importance. Minjitthemidget 18:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
So we both agree that the title is incorrect and I believe I have demonstrated that it gives a grossly, evilly distorted misreprentation of an evil conference. This is not a mere euphemism - it is a distortion and attempt at disguising something evil by making it sound legitimate. Why not "for the sake of brevity," let alone truth, call it what it is? Otherwise we are complicit in the distortion. Minjitthemidget 18:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no little pop-up bubble to indicate that the scare quotes are scare quotes. Especially in a news headline, quotes are taken to be quotations of things, without the skepticism implied by scare quotes. I frankly still don't see why "conference aimed at denying the Holocaust" is not the best option. It accurately describes the event. It does not in anyway mislead. Frankly, it does not even add a moral judgment; it simply describes the event accurately and lets the reader draw his/her conclusions. "Review the Holocaust" has all the severe problems I discuss above. Minjitthemidget 20:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Please people, we're writing a NPOV encyclopedia, not a "moral point of view" encyclopedia. It's completely irrelevant for our purposes whether what they're doing is good or bad, honest or dishonest, science or mumbo-jumbo. We don't need to judge their actions, we don't need to drive in the point that holocaust denial is bad. We are not an advocacy website. We just need to accurately describe what they're doing and readers will decide themselves whether they think that's a good or a bad thing. Zocky | picture popups 03:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I will say this once again: it is false to say you are "reviewing" something you are denying and lying about. I completely agree with the statement "We just need to accurately describe what they're doing." That means describing, quite accurately, it as Holocaust denial. NPOV does not imply printing false statements. And, incidentally, we are not necessarily neutral or not in need to judge their actions. We should strive for that, to be sure, but all discussions and summaries of controversial actions inherently tend towards bias of one sort or another through choice of words. We need to try to accurately describe events, not use the incorrect terms used by a government attempting to hoodwink the world by using reasonable, anodyne words for something unreasonable and disgusting. Iran is exploiting us and our propensity for ostensible neutrality to make Holocaust denial sound legitimate. Again: would we report a conference on the ways slavery was better for African Americans as a "review" of slavery, if David Duke described it as such? I suggest that the answer is, or should be, no. Minjitthemidget 05:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
IMO putting this bit of irritating "news" on the Wikipedia main page is just giving a stage to lunacy and idiotism, not to mention blind hatred. This whole "conference" is a big joke and if there was a section on the main page for various curiosities and weird phenomena, it would belong there - definitely not on the first paragraph of the news. If president Ahmeidnijad decided to go on a freak show circus tour would that be news? I don't think so! So IMO this whole "news" bit should be removed from the main page. Find another place for it. Tweekerd 13:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It's a recently updated article on an item in the news, and belongs in the ITN section. The conference itself is not explictly to deny the Holocaust, and several rabbis and other groups which affirm the Holocaust have agreed to attend, so the demand that we headline it in any other way is going nowhere. Much of the above smacks of misdirected anger - if you're angry that Mahmoud Imonajihad is hosting a Holocaust revisionist conference, tell him to stop it, don't tell us to either ignore it or lie about it. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I will say this yet again: let's report it correctly, and indeed not ignore it or lie about it. That means describing it accurately as a Holocaust denial conference. Or is our policy to acquiese in someone else's propaganda without any minimal assessment of our own? And regarding the Rabbis: They are all fanatical anti-zionists who have praised Ahmedinejad (not "Imonajihad") for vowing to destroy Israel. One actually does explicitly deny the Holocaust, because he is insane. As I said, they hate nearly all Jews, namely the non-ultra-orthodox and the ultra-orthodox who support Israel. In other words, they are de facto antisemites. These freaks being there should not give license to a Holocaust denial conference to be called something else. 65.162.55.10 14:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The 'Did You Konw…?' section on the main page needs a rethink. Such a section should include facts that are in some way surprising or thought-provoking, not just obscure. The way it is now, the only thought likely to be provoked is: "Why should I care?" For example (using facts that happen to come to mind right now): "Did you know that Nicephorus was a Byzantine emperor of the 9th Century?" [Boring] "Did you know that Nicephorus was the only Byzantine emperor killed in battle, apart from the very last emperor?" [Mildly interesting] "Did you know that the skull of the Byzantine emperor Nicephorus was made into a drinking vessel by the Bulgar khan Krum?" [Much better] Patrick Neylan 00:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Patrick Neylan
WT:DYK is the policy page for DYK. suggestions welcome. Thanks, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 02:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
"Did you know that Nicephorus was a Byzantine emperor of the 9th Century?" [Boring] (In your opinion). "Did you know that Nicephorus was the only Byzantine emperor killed in battle, apart from the very last emperor?" [Mildly interesting] (In your opinion) My point is just because you find certain articles that appear in this section boring it doesnt make the section crap. Its all a matter of perspective, i find theres days/weeks where nothing at all on the main page interests me. Anyway, on to the main reason i was going to add a comment. How about actually putting a link to the article in the DYK stub? Theres a rather interesting one today, Did i know that such and such got sunk to a depth of... to stop the nazi's from gaining nuclear weapons. Know i didnt. And it seems ill never know, because as theres plenty of links in there, they all go to the article for the single word rather than an article that the stub refers to. Squad'nLeedah 22:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The name should be changed to "Do you care...?" — Centrx→ talk • 03:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It's old news already. John Hyams 17:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
it pisses me off. sure, you can delete stuff that is irrelevant, but you dont need to act condesending about it. if wikipedia isnt a viable source to be cited for reports, why not let people have a little fun? i know people try to use this site as an encyclopedia, myself included, but i would still laugh if i read something that was obviously a joke. if im not mistaken, wikiality.com was created so people could do just that, and so people would leave wikipedia alone, but the information is so dry and hard to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.153.250 ( talk • contribs) 14 December 2006
what im saying is that if someone deletes content and you replace it, thats okay. but why cant someone post something humorous once in awhile? and dont you dare direct me to some crappy wikipedia entry on the science of laughter. i hardly think comedy should be considered a form of vandalism.
Did you know "...that Texas politician Maury Maverick, Jr. killed a bill to sentence convicted communists to death by adding a poison pill amendment to sentence suspected communists to life imprisonment?" Poor choice of words (killed a bill) when talking about actual death also. Also should say USA Texas politician. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.144.251.120 ( talk) 01:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
Can someone please remove the bisected penis from the front page? Thanks. - MSTCrow 06:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually I'm going to suggest that some admin blank the main page -- T- rex 06:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Please fix it wtf!! im disgusted
Looks like someone got it off... thanks to whoever you are! Arynknight 06:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I think everyone knows what I'm talking a out when I say....WHAT THE HELL?! Whydoit ( Why... do it?) 06:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
That was absolutely awful. SpikeZoft 06:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear God that made me sick. The Wookieepedian 06:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The image was deleted, but seems to be back...somebody needs to do an earth-salting deletion, I think. Its Image:Treecutoff.jpg (Obvious warning: if you haven't already seen it, you don't want to.-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It was incredible, really - survived on the main page for at least five minutes. G Rose 06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
How would the villain responsible be able to hide their edits and prevent the showing of the history? It is impossible to edit this talk page without edit conflict, btw.
Valley2city
06:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm rather inexperienced and not quite sure how to resolve this issue, that is, a "ModBlog" photo covering the entire right corner of the main page. If someone could resolve this problem that would be great!
they just deleted the image, the link is still there. Thanks anyway, whoever. R OY YO Я 06:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Uh yeah. it's back... R OY YO Я 06:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone please get rid of that picture...it can't be that hard moderators!
I think it is a virus, admins should block the uploader(s). Seems they change the file name. - 203.87.129.111 06:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
What bug me now is...how did they do it? there must be a security hole or something the like somewhere on wiki.... Whydoit ( Why... do it?) 06:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
what the hell just happened 71.58.245.168 06:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Check the templates-- DaveOinSF 06:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Could an admin remove the redlink to a image at the top, just below the donations line? I know this is small, but still in a visible place. Thanks. 24.20.69.240 06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Can this vandal be blocked? OneCyclone 06:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I saw a very disgusting picture showing a penis in the main page. Luckily, I was not browsing Wiki in public. It was fixed right before I start typing these words. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.103.220.136 ( talk) 06:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
I think the offending picture is off
There appears to be a picture of what I think is a deformed bleeding penis on the main page and I was wondering if an Admin could remove it. Thanks.-- Flyingcheese 06:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Could the admininstrators explain how did the photo appear in a protected page and who did it? As I can't seem to find any history on that. If it's a loophole on Wikipedia, is there any solution for it? -- Cyktsui 06:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
This link was posted on 4chan: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Treecutoff.jpg must've been done through there, I guess. 71.113.30.206 07:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Good work for whoever found out about 4chan! But looking at history of Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 15 does not provide any clue.... I wonder if the administrator who fixed the problem can let us know what happened. -- Cyktsui 07:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Chinese Wikipedia met the same problem.
In the popular /b/ forum, someone has taken credit. Since most /b/ threads have a life expectancy of 20 minutes, I have archived the post. :: Colin Keigher ( Talk) 07:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I, for one, am not entirely thrilled with the inclusion of the investigation into a serial killer that killed five prostitutes in Ipswich, England. Please tell me if even more heinous incidents in the past, like the Prospect Avenue murders of 2004 in Kansas City (as many as 12 women linked to one murderer; Terrance Gillard is awaiting special trial on those murder charges), BTK, or anything comparable worldwide have been included on the front page before. -- KHill-LTown 01:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
That's it! One more complaint and no one shall have ITN! ;) jokes ;) -- Monotonehell 03:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't get it; why is no one complaining about the Chinese River Dolphin or the election of a president in an unrecognized state that sat on ITN for days? I agree the item is questionable, but I fear we won't be able to please everyone. -- tariqabjotu 20:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a crucial news item, not because of the number of murders but because of the effect they're having in the UK: it's already causing a major debate about the role of the state in the prohibition of drugs, the suppression of prostitution and the combined effects of these policies. It's notable also for the internet angle: one of the arrested suspects has a Myspace page which has been mined by the press for photos and information - first time that's happened in such a major case, though I may be wrong. In short, I think the inclusion of the story has less to do with the fact that five women have been murdered, horrific though that may be, than it has to do with the cultural effect the whole thing is having. Bedesboy 20:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to make major announcements about Wikibooks on the main Wikipedia page? Robinhw 11:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
What about one of your nice boxes with:
Wikibooks! From books for university such as Special Relativity to books for infants such as Big Cats Wikibooks has a book for everyone.
Robinhw 12:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Way doesn't Wikibook fuse with Wikisource, the development would be faster.--Eternal Imortal 16:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
It would be great if there was a very clear way for folks to post comments on featured articles if they want to. I mean a redirect from "discuss this article" to this page whenever a page is featured (or something like that). I inadvertently went to the article's talk page for a featured article to post a comment, and think that was incorrect. I spent something like 20 minutes looking for the right link to post, because I knew it had to be there somewhere. Please consider it. Thank you. NinaEliza ( talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 18:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know where else to go for help because most of my user page was deleted. Can you please restore it to it's original form? Can you also trace the IP that vandalized it. Please and thank you! Season Greetings!-- kitsumiti 19:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay thank you Bryson! I found out the IP of the vndalizer is 216.36.138.14 Can you please give them heck from me? Thanks! -- kitsumiti 19:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay! Thanks everybody! I havn't been here for a while soI can forget a few things. kitsumiti 19:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no particular objection to Britain, but it seems as if we have too many British entries: two entries dealing explicitly with Britain and one that deals with Britain and the future US. However, before I replace one of them (probably Cromwell) with something else significant from December 16 (probably the Polish president assassination), I'd like to see some others' opinions. — Cuivi é nen 01:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Time this took up a bit less space. The bit about donations could be merged with the bit below. 81.168.46.189 10:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't answer my question. Suppose I don't want to donate: it doesn't cause WP any harm to squash that. 81.168.125.50 11:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Please remove the "Donate via PayPal" button on every page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.130.164.38 ( talk) 12:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC).
Why do we not have links to recently deceased notables like the German Wiki? I've always found that very interesting. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 13:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2006 168.215.59.254 ( talk • contribs)
Wangchuck? That's really the name of the Bhutanese royal family? Oh my God ...
Thank God this didn't happen on a weekday. The vandalism would have been off the scale until we protected the article. Daniel Case 19:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The summary says that the English Bill of Rights 1689 asserts positive rights, but the rights listed in the article are all negative ("freedom from") or at least arguably so ("freedom to"). — Tamfang 20:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that it's kind of strange that the "featured articles" text on the main page header is in title caps. I.e. "1198 of which are Featured Articles" instead of "1198 of which are featured articles". Isn't it so that this should just be the latter, i.e. "featured articles", instead of with a capital for every word? function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage): Void 16:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi article?-- Azer Red Si? 17:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Who changes the main page articles? Comperr 05:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Done —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Comperr ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
Just in case anyone noticed... (I didn't!) the sidebar has changed. I've started a little thread at the talk page of the redesign page. Carcharoth 10:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
There should be a way to nominate pictures for the main page without the pics having to be featured first. Although the title is "featured pictures," many stunning and amazing pics are not featured. There should be some sort of a voting process. Seldon1 15:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!
Great job! Now the "search box" is lower on the screen, so I am forced to scroll down to get to it. I am very happy that this change took place. I wish you the best of luck with future changes! Maybe next time the box could change positions or disappear when the mouse pointer hovers above it. The great thing is that, if changes keep making Wikipedia worse, all articles are soon going to end up like what is written above about Dr. R. Vaithilingam (I see that the Vaithilingam part was removed; it was a rambling about some professor in India, written in poor English). 89.120.193.125 21:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem with the sidebar search box positioning is being discused here. I also linked to this above. For now, a good tip (or workaround if you like) for jumping to the search box is using Alt-F. At least this works in Firefox. Other browsers and other operating systems probably have similar shortcuts to jump to a search box, or to places on a page. Carcharoth 00:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that was certainly interesting. It's not everyday you see a vandal actually admit he just vandalized something. In regards to this. Strange. Dooms Day349 23:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
IMO considering this is possible it should just block the edit 84.64.226.4 18:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
When I am not logged in, and and just looking around, the font got smaller between now and , say 3 hours ago. What is going on? -- Lionheart Omega 03:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
...no longer allegedly. -- J o h n O 13:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I've been looking around for a way of citing a permanent URL to the front page for a specific day and can't find any. Is there a way? As far as I can tell, the permanent URL refers to the template rather than the content. But what about if somebody wants to cite a specific combination of articles as they appeared on the front page of the wikipedia on a specific day (as, in fact, I want to right now). IS this possible? dpod 18:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
"that the world's longest lasting lightbulb is 105 years old and has been burning continuously since 1976?"
Does anyone else have a problem with the math here? As far as I am reading this, theres a light bulb thats been lasting for 105 years and its been going since 1976? Or is it very old and 105 years old but has only been used since 1976? Because this is not clear to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.99.207 ( talk) 22:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
I propose a new major wikiproject Wikilanguage or Wiki Linguistics which specializes in the teaching of all languages. I have looked over the internet and have found some sites which do have several of the major languages giving knowledge of learning them but this wuould be huge. This would provide all the information for learning languages such as most of the 250 languages that already have wikipedias. Learning a language is a major infomration source but wikipedia does not have this. Anybody interested in starting this ? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)