Talk:Main Page/Archive 51

I am a CanadianI would like to thank the Wikipedia editors for featuring a great deal of Canadian content on the Main Page. Canada's contributions to the world are often overlooked because of our own pre-occupation with our internal problems (e.g. Quebec secession, regionalism in general), and the fact that we seem to suffer from a inferiority complex due to our proximity to the United States. In other words, we don't do a good job of "selling ourselves," and thus don't give much of a reason for others to notice what we've done.

Part of the problem is that Canadians are not well educated in their own history and hence do not have a good understanding of the relative worth of our contributions. Hopefully, via Wikipedia, the world (Canadians included) will have a better idea of Canada's small but significant role on the international scene in the past and in the present. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lonesome road (talk • contribs) .

We do however, have a lot of trees. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.34.68.10 (talk • contribs) .

(more canadian content!!!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.70.95.203 (talk • contribs) ..

Along with Canadian 'contributions,' though, Canadians should be schooled in some of the less pleasant parts of Canadian history and society. Residential schools, Japanese internment, a cozy relationship with Suharto, Saskatchewan Uranium being used for armour-piercing bullets in the first Gulf War (and the tons of radioactive bullets that now litter the Iraq landscape), and current racial tensions (Saskatoon police officers leaving aboriginals out to die in the cold...) need to be discussed before we sink into a cacophony of smug and self-congratulatory national pride.

--Subbevil 16:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

From your text it seems Canada is the only country which has done something wrong. All countries can be accused of something bad. That's not the point. Canada's problem is, as stated, its border with the US who simply dumb them down all the time for no reason (I am shocked at the amount of absolutely bold statements about Canada in American films/series/music etc. Everyone seems to forget that neither Americans nor Canadians actually belong where they live now thus there is no place for pride.

--Guest 16:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

For thousands of years it has worked this way: You defeat a nation (or a people), you take there land, it is now yours. It was this way when we came to America's. We defeated the indians, and therefore the land is now ours. Thats how it has worked for THOUSANDS of years, and that is how it worked in that regard. Are you also going to say other pieces of conquered land in England are not theres? How bout Germany? Russia? Your statment was ingnorant of how this world works.

What about Germany or Russia? You think Chinese live in the Moscow area before the Slavic? Or black people in Berlin?

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (pictured) denies the Holocaust of Jews in Europe, calling it a "myth". "

Sorry, this is biased news. Do we see a top headline every time a Western president says something ignorant about gays, colonialism, communism, or whatever else they are prejudiced about? Mention it in the article about the Iranian President, sure, but wiki news should not be a mouthpiece for targeted propaganda such as this. (Not that it's not true, but it's "newsworthy" as the US/Europe are mounting a campaign against Iran.) Dan Carkner 18:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting he did not make such comments? Stating facts is not biased. --Nelson Ricardo 18:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes! We do see a headline every time a president (or here in the UK - prime minister) makes a gaff like that. Our media loves it.

Iran has stolen nuclear bomb plans; and likely materials from Pakistan as well -- those in turn were stolen -- that leads back finally to the orginal theft from Jewish(Ironic?) communists fenced to the Soviets. Remarks by the Iranian president, given the willfull use of stolen nuclear secrets that could shed light upon their intentions, is legitimate news.

Don't think so - this comment has international implications - anyone remember Pat Robertson? -- Natalinasmpf 19:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You flatter Mr Robertston. --mav

Did we really have Mr Robertson? God. Well, if we had Mr Robertson than we should have Mr Imonajihad for the sake of avoiding bias. But I was under the impression that ITN is for articles whose subjects are in the news, not whatever takes the media's passing fancy. --Last Malthusian 09:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, your last sentence is basically what I meant. If Robertson was there, then OK, I guess it balances out ;) Dan Carkner 15:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The Western Hemisphere was stolen, the land plundered, and the indigenous peoples visited with genocide! -- User:john 5:56 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The apparent muting of anti-USA activists has created a swell of interest in ANYONE capable of "standing up to" the American's. Especially after willful violation of another countries sovreignty, and the apparent intention to invade any country demonstrating similar personalities to Iraq's deposed President. It appears, that to speak out, like Rep. Murtha did, ... is "un-American" even though the concept of expressed dissent is a fundamental concept of the American way-of life. Grappling with what limits there are, everyone is possessed with curiosity ... exactly how far will the US go to silence it's critics? I just hope I'm not next.

Unias 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Does it seem that whenever the U.S. elects a moderate president so do other countries, and whenever the U.S. elects someone from the right those same countries follow suit.م 05:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• A comparison of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica
• A Nature editorial supporting Wikipedia

Yes. They are for real. Look at the URLs! --EMS | Talk 21:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, here are the articles they sampled Raul654 21:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

And see the new Wikipedia:External peer review. violet/riga (t) 21:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

And Wikipedia will probably fix the inaccuracies faster than Encyclopaedia Britannica !!! -- 199.71.174.100 00:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Why is no one submitting this to Slashdot? Lotsofissues 22:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Now this is cool. Finally, some good press! I'm hoping that this inspires some helpful new editors. Rampart 22:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• this is brilliant! finally some people who are Getting It (and the right people, at that). This one article is easily worth several dozen sneering tabloid blurbs. dab (ᛏ) 22:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• The BBC have picked up on it as well, and it has appeared in the magazine section of their website, in the "10 things" section. The magazine has a good worldwide following. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4520854.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm !!! --Zhengfu 12:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe people have the right to expres themselves and are entitled to their opinions. This is a free world and we must strive to keep it free.

Why does no one mention are sister project wikinews: — n:Wikipedia and Britannica about as accurate in science entries, reports Nature Bawolff 00:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is compelling as a resource for information. With the advent of the internet, news is in-extricably tied to content history ... making a section of news on the main page of wikipedia plausible and useful, and wikinews as an independent concept clearly impractical. Does that answer your question?

--- no one cears about that sort of stuff, so it's not a headline.--

Per Wikipedia style, shouldn't "Beautiful Boy", as a song title, be in quotes rather than italicized? I'd fix it, but, well, I'm not allowed. Scarequotes 03:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Shoe polish? What the hell? CrazyAussie 04:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you just upset that it was called Kiwi?-gadfium 05:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The debate begins: more or less interesting than Whatsherface Strychnine?

On a slightly (very slightly) more serious note, if the Main Page is meant to showcase Wikipedia, then right now the main page says "We like to write about shoe polish". --Last Malthusian 09:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

First modern shoe polish?

Despite the blurb on today's (Dec 15 2005), "Kiwi" was not "the first modern shoe polish". The German brand "Erdal" was patented in 1901.Kar98 16:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

OK so when I designed this, patterning my uncyc User Page after the Wikipedia Main Page, which I undersatnd lots of people do, I noticed I really didn't like the pnk color for the Featured article section to be on my User Page. Then I took a closer look at the Wikipedia main page and realized, heck I don't like it there either! It's ugly as hell! Green would look so much better, and as it does here. So, uh, yeah. That's my suggestion. A minor shift in the color scheme. --Nerd42 05:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

i sort of agree with this chap, Nerd42. except his green is a touch to bright. something paler would work better. infact, isn't wikipedia contemplating overhauling the main page? Veej 23:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, It is proven that pastel colors for websites is best. It i seasy to read, soft for the eye, so that you are able to browse the site longer... What could be thought of is light yellow (puts people in a buying mood), green makes people calm, etc etc etc. It is interesting to look at what you want for your customers and not to look at what your personal opinion is!

I actually quite like the pink. Though I can't say I'd be upset if it changed. Run! 11:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

well thw title says it all!!!

Why? --Vagodin 11:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that prides itself on its diversity. You would find the same articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica, so why not Wikipedia? Unless, of course, you found an article that violates rules? Kareeser|^Talk! 18:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not say that Wikipedia is not intended for the protection of minors. x42bn6 Talk 02:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

In order to debate it, wouldn't we need to know what offended? A link to something? Unias 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

As well written as it may be, "shoe polish" is a horribly boring subject for a "Featured Article". How many people are really like "Gee, I wish I knew more about shoe polish!" Just my 2 cents. :) Trojanpony 08:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Nearly every time I go on Wikipedia the featured article is interesting.. not today.

Maybe the guy who does the F.A got Christmas and April Fools confused? CrazyAussie 09:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this is precisely the sort of article I think shows the diversity of Wikipedia. I enjoy seeing articles here that are a bit unexpected. Not everything that is a featured article needs to be groundbreaking, after all. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not asking for groundbreaking, just interesting. I think there usually is a good amount of diversity in the FA's. Something like "shoe polish" doesn't really "showcase" anything, frankly. You could find a good entry on shoe polish in any standard encyclopedia. FA's often highlight articles you won't find in a typical encyclopedia. I think these go a lot further to showcase the strength of Wikipedia. Trojanpony 13:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, what? Shoe polish is preciesly the kind of obscure thing which is neglected by traditional encyclopedias. I wouldnn't be surprised if the wikipedia article is now the world's leading authority on shoe polish. (Or at least it will be, once Kar98 improves it.) Doops | talk 19:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I am quite ashamed to admit that I did comply with your request. Kar98 04:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Despite the blurb on today's (Dec 15 2005), "Kiwi" was not "the first modern shoe polish". The German brand "Erdal" was patented in 1901 Kar98 16:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not mentioned in the article. Perhaps you could contribute? Doops | talk 19:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is made so we can learn about stuff we normaly would'nt seek out. Hagamaba 19:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with the general feeling of disgust regarding the pedestrian nature of the featured article. Hagamaba said, "Wikipedia is made so we can learn about stuff we normaly would'nt seek out". Unless we have interesting featured articles then nobody will bother to seek out wikipedia's front page at all. This is all very reminicient of the kind of mindless frivilousness where some university students waste time & resources reasearching 'The probability of toast falling butterside down on the kitchen floor' or something equally useless. There are some truely fascinating articles within wikipedia, the like of which, cannot be found elsewhere. Feature them! instead of degrading the reputation of wikipedia. Whoever chose this as an FA, did you think it was funny? Is there some cutesy sweetness about it? Is it quirky & eccentric? Infact, it's none of these things. It's just tedious. When i want a laugh i'll goto badgas. When i want knowledge i come here. Please keep this the best place to come. Veej 22:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I second that. The featured articles of late are becoming ridiculous. How can Wikipedia be taken seriously as an encyclopedia if it merely mirrors the Internet's random nonsense. People read encyclopedias to learn. Featuring articles on shoe polish and nobody-politicians simply tells me that Wikipedia is a gimmick. Too bad--Wikipedia had such great potential...

"Silly" stuff can turn out to be important - winmine.exe fascinates some mathematicians, for example, due to its relation to an unsolved problem in mathematics. Maybe Minesweeper will make it to featured some day. Metarhyme 04:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The best featured articles are those that come alongside nicely with current events, which happens a lot sometimes. Rosa Parks, for example. People who come to Wikipedia will see the featured article and think "I saw that on the news today" and probably want to go to the article to find out more. I'm not suggesting that the articles be events (that's for wikinews), but perhaps the articles could be people or places involved in the events. Run! 11:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said with Tom Brinkman who featured recently, there is a case for including seemingly minor subjects - the serendipity factor. (Having a major and a minor topic would fill up too much of the main page.

Jackiespeel 14:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the main criterion for a featured article that it corresponds to the various policies on what makes a good article and the Manual of Style? If so, I have to say Wikipedia is disappearing up its own rectum a bit. It's all very well to showcase Wikipedia's virtues, but if an article is boring (not 'obscure' - shoe polish is no more obscure than toothpaste or toilet cleaner, it's just an everyday object) then people won't read it and won't learn anything about Wikipedia. --Last Malthusian 16:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The criteria list links to Wikipedia:The perfect article which describes a perfect article as engaging. However there's nothing else that might filter boring articles from the FA candidates. Perhaps there should be. Run! 16:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought the Featured Article bit was meant to showcase well-written Wikipedia articles, and Shoe Polish is a well-written article, even if on a slightly exotic subject. I rely on the FA section to save me choosing something unusual to read about with my lunch at my desk.Bazza 12:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If it's interesting articles (rather than particularly well-written ones), take a gander at Wikipedia:Unusual articles. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 24-11-2024 01:25 (UTC) 17:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how to sort this, but someone has created the page interbang, which is clearly a misremembering of interrabang. Could someone with powers and knowledge clean this up?14:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've changed Interbang so that it now redirects to Interrabang. Thryduulf 14:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Can some of the text be archived (or is year's end a better point)?

Jackiespeel

Discussions that have been inactive for a period of time, I think it's a week, are automatically archived. Leithp (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe I'm wrong about this? Leithp (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no automatic archiving. The "procedure" is that eventually somebody gets tired of scrolling around on this page, cuts most of the text on this page, pastes it into a new archive, sticks a "archive: do not modify" box on top, and updates the header template. Normally the last couple sections that are still relevant are left, which also gives new users a hint of what sort of discussions happen on this page. BanyanTree 16:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps something at the top of the page could describe this? I was caught unaware about this, and was just cleaning up random stale crap from the main page, sorry about that. Mirell 12:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I just removed a large picture of a penis from the featured article on Shoe polish. A day or two ago I saw a picture of an American murderer in place of the Iranian president (since replaced). So, editors-in-chief or whatever it is called around here, please pull off your gloves and grab your batons. Cheerio Io 19:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The latter was probably from someone not being careful when they updated the In The News template — adding the Iranian President blurb, but forgetting to remove the word "pictured" from the Williams blurb. Evil Monkey - Hello 20:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't me, but I think a picture of a penis would have been an improvement to the shoe polish article :-) Kar98 23:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you're still using wiki species logo 4 at the bottom, but logo 6 was picked so they say. Metarhyme 03:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

And a fine logo it is too. A local protected copy is now on the front page. - BanyanTree 05:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I amended the introduction to remove the parentheses on the article. Could this be updated in the template for the main page? -- Natalinasmpf 04:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, can an administrator please give me a response on whether is this going to be done, and if not, why so? I did amend the introduction of the article itself, but this of course, should be updated in the main page entry. Can this be done, please? -- Natalinasmpf 05:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Put

"The House of Commons is the lower house of the Canadian Parliament, and holds far more power than the Senate, the upper house, and is in practice, by far the dominant House of Parliament"

to replace

Natalinasmpf 06:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Done. Harro5 06:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please un-do this; it's poorly phrased. The commons is not the lower house in practice; it *is* the lower house. The "in practice" modifier should refer only to its dominance. By the way, Natalinasampf — just what is it about the parentheses you object to? Doops | talk 06:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I just rolled back my own edit. How demeaning :p Harro5 06:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Parentheses look unprofessional, and should be used only very, very sparingly. Amended my proposal. -- Natalinasmpf 06:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"The "lower" of the two houses making up the parliament, the House of Commons in practice holds far more power than the upper house, the Senate." [Natalinasampf's new proposal]

• I'll wait to see what other admins think. In my view, the new proposal is too confusing in its language and wording, and the current version is better. But we'll see what the consensus is. Harro5 06:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Did we not just have a featured article on this? Jeff245 06:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The upper house of Canada was featured on May 27, 2005. --64.229.227.175 18:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I observed that the main page no longer labels Wikipedia as a "free-content" encylopedia, although the simple layout and article on Wikipedia are still consistent in that regard. I read the talk page on the {{MainPageIntro}} template, and it seems the reason for this change was because of a statement by Jimbo Wales, but this statement is no longer linked from any page, other than 7 talk pages. I feel that this is a major oversight, because there is a major difference between free and free content. [1]. Either the main page should link to free content, as it did before, or it should link to Jimbo's statement. At least, that's my view on the matter. Signed, Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 04:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Due to the/some recent legal issues this change doesn't suprise me at all. The guys upstairs are obviously feeling the pressure for giving unlimited freedom to the public in editing and creating articles on Wikipedia, and I don't blame them. I also don't see why their word choice has to be justified on the main page; people curious about the change are apparently able to find out why it happened.   freshgavin TALK    05:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"Free-content" means just that; that the contents of the encyclopedia are free. This has nothing to do with relative openness to anonymous edits. I guess the concept of a "free encyclopedia" can be seen in a bit broader way, but it certainly includes us remaing free-content.--Pharos 07:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Should a flag be used to represent Iraq while the state of the flag is in flux? To retain a NPOV, shouldn't a map be used instead? —the preceding unsigned comment is by 66.245.12.91 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 16 December 2005

• How is "the state of the flag is in flux"? Iraq is a country, a nation, a state; this is it's flag. What's wrong with that? Harro5 06:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Haha, don't I remember something about a light-blue being proposed a couple years ago? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 06:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • There has been a huge thing about the flag, every since the start of the war. An American consultancy designed a new one, but the people utterly rejected it. So by default, they are retaining the Saddam-era flag, with the added Allehu Accba (sp). However, this is possibly not a long term solution, and a new people-designed one would be good. But elections first, I think. But I'm not sure this means the flag is currently in flux. 09:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC) (Skittle)
      • Please see flag of Iraq for all the details. The 2004 flag was was actually designed by a member of the Governing Council's brother.--Pharos 12:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I think Pharos meant "a brother of a member of the Governing Council." --64.229.5.140 15:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Picky. And what's with all these bullet points? Run! 16:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I think that it should be noted that failed light blue flag was not designed by anyone in Iraq, rather by an expatriot living in Britin, and commissioned by the U.S. The people of Iraq didn't like it and chose the old flag, which by the way represents Iraq and not Saddam or his regime, but with a small change. The old inscription of Allahu Akbar (God is Greater) which was added during the sanctions was said to be written by Saddam's finger. It was changed to much more beautiful (and anonomious) font.م

"there are more than hundred" should be changed to "a hundred" or "one hundred". BrainyBroad 16:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually it should say "about one hundred", as that is what the article itself says. Run! 18:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It is upto the people of Iraq to debate and decide on such matters the US the UN or anyone else has nothing to useful to offer in this department

How upsetting for Russia, to find that the people of Iraq get to decide on matters about their nature reserves :-) 14:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC) (Skittle)

Jimbo, Mav and others would like the fundraising notice to be more prominent, and since doing it on every page will annoy most people, doing it only on the Main Page seems like the best choice. Since we can't remove the current message from the Main Page, the new message will have to supplement the current message.

Any suggestions? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 20:02

• See Template:Main Page banner and make suggestions/changes there. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 20:13

A Christmas Carol is hardly a short story. It is described in its article as a novella. Can the anniversaries section be changed to match please? CalJW 00:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Done. Harro5 00:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it fair to flatly state "illegal domestic wiretaps"? The NSA article itself states that:

NSA's United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18 (USSID 18) strictly prohibits the interception or collection of information about "...US persons, entities, corporations or organizations..." without explicit written legal permission from the Attorney General of the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that intelligence agencies cannot conduct surveillance against American citizens. There are of course a few extreme circumstances where collecting on a US entity would be allowed without a USSID 18 waiver, such as with civilian distress signals, or sudden emergencies (such as 9/11; however, the USA PATRIOT Act has significantly changed privacy legality).

If such permission was granted (which is currently unknown, to my knowledge) then they wouldn't be illegal. --SVTCobra 00:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, for the fix. "Warrentless" good choice of words. --SVTCobra 00:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm noticing a disturbing and severe left-wing bias in the 'news' bit. Something to keep in mind..

Welcome to the Internet. -- Pakaran 03:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this is the greatest example of history being written by the victor. g Or should we say that law is determined by the ruler? Unias 18:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Please add "sometime in 2004" to this blurb; as presently written, it sounds like the event itself is current news. Doops | talk 01:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevent point removed by user after re-reading article. Woops!vcxlor 06:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

An OpenSource Encyclopedia (that word isnt patented is it?) obviously has great benefits, information by people, in fluent appropriate and targeted for people. But vandelism is rife and is threat to the greater credibility of this site. A discussion on implementing a system of ranking and scoring in relation to user/TOPICS/Profession is required, currently I'm a computer technician, i don't know anything about Medicine however i can change the greatest medical advancement penicillin to panadol if i wanted.

Suggestion: Each article should have ability for the reader to rate the information in each section as good or bad. every good vote will increase how reputible the Author and Information they post on a scale. a bad mark increases the chance that someone will out rank you and edit or possibly replace your Info.

Conclusion: We do need to stop cross contamination (Self Proclaimed experts from destroying quality and reputable Experts Say) and general Vandelism. Though this system will be possible to exploit, Will the time and effort required for a bad egg to acquire a good Quality Knowledge rank justify general annoyances they aim to cause?

There is already a system in the works (according to Nature.com, i believe) in which each article will have two versions: a 'live' version which is viewable by visitors and uneditable, and a 'background' article which is editable but cannot be seen. Occasionally, when the background version is stable, the live version will be updated (perhaps by consensus and then through an administrator).
Also, vandalism is not nearly as bad as you think. It may be rife but most of it is quickly reverted. Unfortunately it saps a lot of time and effort from the userbase, time which could be spent on things more productive. Run! 10:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, vandalism is not nearly as bad as you think. It may be rife but most of it is quickly reverted. Unfortunately it saps a lot of time and effort from the userbase, time which could be spent on things more productive.

the point is prevention is always better than cure and yes fixing some inconsiderate users statements do waste people time and even pollutes some peoples minds.

Ah, I for example, know barely anything about special relativity. I however, can copyedit the article, revert vandalism and fix spelling. Turning this into a vote system is ridiculous. -- Natalinasmpf 15:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see my comment on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Main_Page_banner#This_looks_HUGE

Thanks, Msoos 10:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, i was just navitagting amoung the various wikifoundations projects, esspecially between wikimedia and wikipedia, and found it close to impossible to transfer between the various projects seemlessly.

I have a few idea to make the bonds between the projects stronger, and ease the navigation between them for the average user

1. Links in the navigation area to the left of the average wikifoundation project. Such as a list of project links under the search box.

2. Links to each project at the bottom of the average page

3. A universal navigation bar (think blogger) at the top of each projects template.

Also, along with the search and go buttons, another search button to search across all the projects would be handy.

George Bush leads to a disambiguation page. It should be changed to George W. Bush on the main page. - Cuivienen 16:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The statement "President George Bush admits he ordered the National Security Agency to spy against US citizens in the United States without a warrant, currently against US law" is false. Bush has neither confirmed or denied the reports. 200.119.236.249 16:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Was it really secreat?Did Senator Rockerfellow of the intellagence committee know about it? Did the judge that oversees such things know about it? Did the entire intellagence committee know about it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.195.141.217 (talk • contribs) .

They weren't particually spying on all civilians, it was to be used as intellegence- sources include former Iragi and Tallaban leaders, and Palistinian, Iragi, Serian, and Egyptian immigrants. And just so u know CNN has changed the title of their article to "Denies" to "Refuses to Comment". And yes, if you have seen the house and congress results it is said that presedent and his cabinet had the right to spy without a warrent.--68.198.48.71 15:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Copied from Template talk:In the news because it seems that no one read that page:

The 900 protestors are "detained", not arrested. So far only ~10 people have been arrested. [3]

And the "worst violence in 16 years". Where does that figure come from? This probably refers to the reaction in Hong Kong to the 1989 Tiananmen protest, in which no street violence happened at all. The worst street violence should goes back to 1967. --Lorenzarius 16:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm just wondering -- how is the fundraiser reminder on the Main Page (not the one at the top of all pages) generated? I don't see relevant code or edits on the Main Page or {{MainPageIntro}}... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know where to post this message since I obviously can't post it at the Wikimedia pages, as I do not have an account, and I cannot create one as of now. The Create an Account gives a title, along with the note that would normally indicate which fields are necessary to fill in. Somebody should get the service up and running again.

The reason I wanted to create an account at Wikimedia is to ask exactly how people from Russia are able to donate to Wikimedia, as both PayPal and Moneybookers do not support the Russian Ruble. And there is a Russian donation page. Just wondering.

Now I guess that all I need to know is how somebody would send money to the Wikimedia Foundation in Russia, as a Russian Donation page has not been made. Again, I'm just wondering.

To any admins paying attention: Under the In the news heading (the George W. Bush/NSA bit), the link to warrant should point to warrant (law), or maybe writ. Deltabeignet 07:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is it that the Bolivian flag on the Spanish Wikipedia is different (it doesn't have the crest)? Yellowmellow45 16:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The correct term is "string instruments", as "string" is an adjective modifying "instruments". It is correct in the article. Soobrickay 11:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Following recent events which resulted in the Wikipedia policy change, apparently one news website had an entry (for a while) that Narnia had left the WTO talks in a huff - spokeswoman Susan Aslan. Jackiespeel 13:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The main page blurb for featured article U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program links to Speculation, but the word refers to general speculation, whereas the article is on economic speculation only. Perhaps an interwiki link to wiktionary:Speculation would have been better.

JamesHoadley 18:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The DYK about St petersburg bridge says it makes communication between the island and the city impossible, the article just says it makes foot travel impossible.

Shouldn't the term Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District be in bold text, not intelligent design? Intelligent design isn't the news topic being reported. --Bryan Nguyen | Talk 02:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've bolded both the case name and "intelligent design". This keeps everyone happy, and also will hopefully spurn more edits to the case article, which needs to a "more polished article", to borrow language from above. Harro5 03:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Should the New York City Mass Transit Union Strike be in the news? The MTA transports 2.4 billion customers every year, and the stoppage of such large amounts of people should count for something. 2005 New York City transit strike Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 05:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, here in England, it appeared on the evening news on all networks.Yellowmellow45 10:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Born in Auckland New Zealand in 1973, attended Auckland Grammar School and Auckland University. Completed a Science Degree in 2001.

Won the Mistral Dnghy world championships in 1995

Moved to Sydney in Dec 2000. Began DJing in 2001 with first gigs in 2002. DJ name Gobbles. Best known as the second half of "Snowpea & Gobbles"

He is now living in Hampstead in London.

PM Ariel Sharon was released from hospital please update in the news to say that --Adam1213 Talk + 11:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone has suggested that these portal links be added to the main page introduction. I think that it's a great idea, but adding these two links stretches the introduction a bit too much. Anyone got any ideas on how to resolve this issue? See Template talk:MainPageIntro for more information. --Ixfd64 04:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I am the computer talking and i would like to discuss the important things about me!!!

Quite selfish this computer or should i say egocentric 16:21, 22 December 2005

Has no one noticed that the thumbnail on the front page has been replaced by Orko from He-Man? I don't know how to fix it, otherwise I would. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d4/Captainmarvel.JPG/100px-Captainmarvel.JPG - Seinfreak37 17:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No sooner did I post this did someone correct the problem. Thanks! - Seinfreak37 17:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I misread one of my sources and it was East Carolina that was making it's first bowl experience in 16 seasons, not Illinois. It's fixed now and Could there be another emergency fact from the article.

In 1994 Greg Landry was a key reason why University of Illinois had the second best passing offense in the Big Ten, which eventually carried the team to a 30-0 win in the Liberty Bowl over East Carolina, which was making its first bowl appearance in 16 seasons.

Or any other fact, for the matter or just remove it as I made the stupid mistake of misreading the source and now. Sorry for the problem --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The new york transit strike is officaly over, so somebody please change that on the main page.

I have an idea! We could have the featured article for wikipedia's 5th anniversary be wikipedia. --Wookiebaca 21:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

There are two donation banners on the main page. They both have links to Fundraising#donation_methods and Deductibility_of_donations. Since space at the top of the main page is so valuable, could we change the wording to remove this repetition? --Heron 10:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

MTA service has now been fully restored [4]. The news item will need to be updated. --Cam 16:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, everybody knows that featured articles are frequently vandalized, and one of the more common infantile tricks is to insert some image, usually a penis, in the featured article. These are always quickly reverted, but I wonder why the offensive images remain in the article's edit history. For example, somebody inserted a photo of masturbation in today's featured article on Joseph Smith, and it is still visible when you get back that far in the "compare selected versions." Isn't there a way to just indicate what the vandal did (as is done with the ID of the image), and to remove the actual image itself from the article's history? In general, that's a big problem with these "selected versions" in the article history--that things like this remain and aren't completely removed/disassociated with the article. MahlerFan 20:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see that Tycho's Nova was "first observed on November 11." Of course, you don't mention that it was November 11, 1572. You'll get people searching the sky 433 years too late! 24.64.223.203 01:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

or holiday spirit? i thnk there should be a santa hat on the wikipedia logo that would be awesome!!! —the preceding unsigned comment is by Jordantheking (talk • contribs)

yeah exactly. all that "polital acceptance" or whatever its called is stupid. just people that want it there way. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Jordantheking (talk • contribs)

User:Angela has a few such logos on her user page. Which, IMHO, is the appropriate place for them. How would you feel if the main page was redecorated in honor of a Wiccan, Communist, or Muslim holiday? There's people out there who feel the same way about Christianity. -- Pakaran 05:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I can see that the actual Ido article contains a link to the Esperanto article, but I noticed that the FA's summary intro on the main page is missing the Esperanto link. Since both languages are so closely related (linguistically and historically), I think it might be appropriate to hyperlink "Esperanto" on the main page as well. Any takers? Rod ESQ 00:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

All right, I see some diligent soul took up the task. I'd like to thank the anonymous editor for the modification. Merry festivities all around! Rod ESQ 06:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Where did our information about Sudan and Chad being at war come from? I can find no mention of it at either the FOX News or the MSNBC websites. Is this accurate? Would whoever put that announcement up please indicate their source of information? Roy Al Blue 01:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean to say that the world news coverage of the major US networks is sub-par?!?!?!? how can that be?!?!?!!? Bwithh 05:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not true. First, his name was Romulus Augustus, not Romulus Augustulus, second, the last emperor was Julius Nepos.--Nixer 16:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It must have gotten really popular without me knowing. I first thought it was just an attempt by someone to use Wikipedia as a soapboax to promote a non-notable holiday they want more people to celebrate, but now I realize that that supposition was completely unjustified. I'm so glad no one's trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. MrVoluntarist 20:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess I overestimated the ability of those here to detect sarcasm. MrVoluntarist 00:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The top item of the "In the news" section is currently the one about the Supreme Court of Libya. The verb in this sentence is overturned, which is in past tense and does not match the tense of all of the others (such as declares and finds). Aaron Jacobs 05:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Same deal today, with "Andrey Illarionov, top economic advisor to Russian President Vladimir Putin, resigns after saying that Russia was 'no longer a democratic country.'" The tense changes in mid-sentence. Encyclopedia editors really should be better schooled in basic grammar. anon 02:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is Kwanzaa not up there with Boxing Day and Wren's Day? appzter 18:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The "best seat in the house" is rather "defined" than is "discovered", since "best" is so subjective. -- Fplay 21:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Despite the large number of English speakers who have increased Wikipedia to almost a million articles, simple English grows very slowly (about 6000 articles). Could simple English be featured on the main page? We might get some more editors that way. Roger 22:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to feature a Portal on the main page, a new one every week. It could just be a simple text link and a one link description of what the portal is about. Portals are kind of a new thing on Wikipedia and they haven't received much attention because barely anyone knows about them. That said, I think they have the potential to grow into something very useful. Linking to them from the main page would definitely help. Comments? --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 21:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I remember seeing sealand on a list of weird articles. Where can I find this list at?schyler 00:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

In Did you know, "whos" should be "whose". AnonMoos

Thanks, already fixed. -- grm_wnr Esc 02:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Testing updates...

Were the knights freelancing or under orders? As far as I know, that's still an open question; we shouldn't take sides. I recommend: ...by knights eager to please Henry II of England or something like that. Doops | talk 08:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Done now. Harro5 23:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, are there no administrators on main page patrol anymore? Scanning this page there are numerous instances of proposed fixes which got no administrator attention at all and passed into history unaddressed. Doops | talk 19:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hoping to start a discussion on the recent attack on the premier and reputed Indian Institute of Science, Banglore. Wondering if this and other frequent attacks in India i.e anytime anywhere attacks, are part of a larger problem ? Problems like illegal immigration, archaic laws, corruption, and I guess incomepetent government. To me it looks like our government's inability and unwillingness to accept the problem due to political compulsion and take on the problem head on. Here is what I mean

1. We have real issue of illegal immegration from Bangladesh. We have uncontrolled influence of foreign charity who in the name of helping poor are exploting them for their own larger cause but our government being "secular" is somewhat keep pushing the issue to the backburner as this is considere politically incorrect and controversial.

2. We have issue of incompetency in every agency of the government be it intelligence, police, beaurocracy but even inspite of repeated attacks all over, the government keeps denying the fact that this is an intelligence failure. To me unless you recognize and accept the problem you will never be able to resolve it.

3. Another issue is regarding our archaic law many of which where formulated under the raj. Again I guess due to political compulsion and the fear of rattling some political can of worm, our government has been dragging its feet on bringing some tough laws. Even the one enacted by BJP like POTA government seems unwilling to use them in the fear creating controversies.

The Pictured does not appear on the main page identifying the man in the history section.J.Steinbock 02:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

In the did you know section for Wilson Peak, "appearence" should be "appearance". Graham/pianoman87 talk 03:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)