"User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]]  

 ====edit break==== 
 The now-version takes up two rows on my srtup now. Unlike the previous-version that was all in one row. The problem we're seeing is because you're trying to fit exact pixel width icons into an adaptive space. Our fonts are set from the monobook CSS from our individual browser's x-small fontsize, then adjusted up by percentage. There's no way you'll be able to marry the pixel width of icons with the relative width of font sizes on everyone's browser the same way.   
 :Hmm. What I'd really like to see, is a justified row of icons that can go onto a second row if needed at smaller resolutions, but I'm stuck as to how to go about it. —The preceding signed comment was added by   •    
 ::You could use JS, the window.width property gives you the width of the browser window and document.width (""Netscape only"", which is a handy tip for modern-day browsers) for the doc itself's width. But MediaWiki isn't good at JS, and it probably won't do it. CSS's ""auto-generated content"" feature would be another option, but it can't work out that stuff.  []  
 : I know I'm not adding anything new, but I'd just like to get in my two cents that I can't stand the way advertising and allegedly helpful links to new features always tend to, over a couple of years, creep into any website that starts off with a purity of purpose. I suppose it's an artifact of any design-by-committee approach. I'm not arguing against change, I'm just arguing that changes should be made with the user's intent in mind. A user visiting en.wikipedia.org wants and expects to see the English encyclopedia, not a collection of non-encyclopedia links that someone has decided that the user needs to be educated about.   

 == Featured Article - B-52 Crash == 

 I find this image associated with this article to be emotionally distressing.  I do not like to see something so awful, where those men are literally in the act of dying.  It is not visually graphic in the classic sense of gore and violence, but it most certainly is graphic to me, because I cannot help but imagine what they were going through at that point. 

 I doubt, if the featured article was for example suicide, there would be chosen an image of someone actually killing themselves; it would be considered obviously offensive. 

 Being on the main page, however, I have been *presented* with this emotional experience, without any choice; which I reject.  Certainly articles themselves can contain graphic imagery, as necessary to their subject; but travelling to an article requires reading the article title which I have always found sufficient to give me choice over my decision. 

 However, I must be able to go to the main page without the risk of such unpleasentness, because it is impossible to reconnaitre the main page before viewing! 

 AS SUCH, I have removed the image from the main page. 

 

 : And so I discover the main page cannot be edited, nor it is immediately apparent how one goes about making the request.    

 ::Wikipedia is not censored.    

 ::And just so you know, Toby, the Main Page (along with a few other things) are permanently protected in order to prevent constant, highly-visible vandalism.      
 :::You should also see our content disclaimer.  Specifically, ""Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers.""    

 :Actually Wikipedia is censored to some degree.  We don't want to have gratuitously offensive imagery on the Main Page.  For example we wouldn't have Goatse as the featured picture.  The problem is drawing the line.  In this instance I would say that the image is acceptable, especially as it is so small as it appears on the main page.   [[User_talk