Talk:Main Page/Archive 86

message: I'm used to use only the english Wikipedia, although my native tongue is finnish. I think it's best to participate to the most active Wikipedia in order to gain the most synergia through diversity and confrontation. We should build our native Wikipedia as a translation, not as an original version. But I've a boundary, namely that history articles seem to be written only in the native language, and it seems appropriate to do so rather than to leave it for other nationalities. It would be negligence towards one's own cultural identity and linguistic distictiveness to write the history of his own culture in a foreign language. English is probably the most wide-spread language in the world. This can be measured by defining the areas of the world where some fixed percentage of people who know english. Thus I ask, should we write our own history in our own language, or write it first in english, while having a comfort of the idea that it's going to be translated? Teemu Ruskeepää 11:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bear in mind that posting the question here will introduce a major bias to the answers you receive. Editors of the English-language Wikipedia are more likely to encourage you to edit the English-language version, just as editors on the Finnish Wikipedia would encourage you to post there. Ultimately it's up to you which you contribute to, there are pros and cons for both choices. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 12:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Firstly, this is probably not the best place to start such a discussion. Try Wikipedia:Village pump or possibly somewhere up in the meta. But I think that since you have a grasp of both Finnish and English that you should contribute to both language versions of "your history". Once in Finnish and once in English. The only neglegence would be denying one or the other language groups the knowledge. --Monotonehell 13:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do it in Finnish.  It's the right thing to do, besides, Finnlanders are probably more interested in Finnish history anyways.Cameron Nedland 23:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know about this policy for Finnish Wikipedia. Personally, I'd like to see more foreign language article translated into English. Please write in Finnish (or Swedish) and then translate to English. It makes sense, as there will be more people with knowledge on the subject who are willing to contribute only in Finnish. Often I see very poor articles on English wikipedia, and when I check to see if more is written in another language I find the same poor article has been translated (I don't read any other languages, but it's obvious). As an English speaker, I'd much rather see more foreign language article translated into English, instead of the other way around. And now that I've said my two cents, yes, Wikipedia:Village pump is probably a better place for this. —Pengo  talk · contribs 02:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse my language, but the English wikipedia is fucking enormous, let some of the other wikipedias get some articles.  None of the others come close, next largest is German and we have THREE TIMES AS MANY ARTICLES.Cameron Nedland 05:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, all of us just need to work on the English wikipedia, and then we can work on translating English wikipedia articles to the other Wikipedias. --Ineffable3000 22:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages of Wikipedia 

message: German wikipedia has more than 500,000 articles. 84.191.255.250 21:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the 20ks all bottled up, the admins will come up with a new threshold - like 30k - which likely lead to the same languages displayed. --Howard the Duck 04:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The English Wikipedia still dominates, so what's your point? --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 02:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are conversing about the language categories that appear on the main page, which is definitely an issue if it gets too crowded. It doesn't matter which specific language is more popular -- thats not even the topic of discussion. falsedef 03:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Haven't we had this discussion 3 or 4 times already over the past month? Nil Einne 12:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but those darn foreigners keep writing more articles! If the article counts didn't change we wouldn't have to keep reconsidering how to list them :) – Gurch 14:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But my point was that this isn't a new discussion. The German language wiki has been 500k for quite a while and people keep mentioning this and asking the same question. Sometimes it's the French one as well. But it's not a new milestone, just a rehash of the old one Nil Einne 10:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia languages 

message: Vandalism is going to go sky high when this is featured.--Donald Goldberg 09:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh god, another Pokemon FA.  — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 11:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought they wouldn't do it again, hehe.--cloviz 15:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So I herd u liek torchicz... Pacific Coast Highway {Ho! Ho! Ho! • My Presents!} 01:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to bring all Pokemon-related articles to FA. Then we can have a year of Pokemon FA's on the Main Page. It would become the PokeWiki. Nishkid64 02:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think one exists already. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get ready for tomorrow 

message: I think that Wikipedia should have a search bar.  I think that it would be helpful and I know that I would use it.  I know this is random, but they should.  Just a plain old search bar, like the one Google has except for Wikipedia--Douglas Bradford Oliver 18:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already do. Its on the navigation bar on the left. FellowWikipedian 20:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he means a search bar for the web browser.--cloviz 21:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firefox has one for Wikipedia. --Maxamegalon2000 23:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an OpenSearch plugin which anyone with a capable web browser (Firefox 2 and IE7) can auto-detect and install. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 02:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone should make one. It is not difficult to program one for IE or Mozilla. --Ineffable3000 22:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er read again, he said, "there is". In any case, I believe both FireFox and IE7 will be able to add them wikipedia directly via their respective add search engines pages Nil Einne 17:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search Bar 

message: Why do we need another Pokemon on the main page? Could someone tell me how these get featured? They are fictional cartoon creatures and yet they are on the main page? Jeez, wikipedia, how can you sink this low? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caffolote (talk • contribs) 03:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the guy you want to talk to: User talk:Raul654. He is the one who chooses which article gets to be featured on the main page. Andrew Levine 04:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why him? Why not, I dunno, use Consensus? Just H 02:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And who's blobosaur? Just H 04:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Featured articles are chosen based on quality, not topic. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 04:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to both this and the below, featured articles are the best articles on Wikipedia.  If that happens to be on a Pokemon, well, live with it.  It's a good article, so it deserves its spot here.  DoomsDay349 04:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Not exactly encyclopedic material. Then again there's the Pokedex(I can't belive I remember that now).--The jazz musician 04:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now we know your big secret, hehehe.--cloviz 05:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Not exactly encyclopedic material?  What pray tell is your definition of encyclopedic material? DoomsDay349 04:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Somehow, I doubt that we'd be having this discussion if the "fictional cartoon creature" depicted were Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse.  —David Levy 04:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well of course, since they are very well-known, but I doubt that any one except poke-nerds (no offense intended) has even heard of "Torchic". This isn't poke-wiki. Featured articles should be ones that a fairly wide range of people can relate to.--Azer Red Si? 04:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I suggest that you formally propose changes to the selection criteria.  As it stands, Torchic qualifies (as does any topic notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia).  At issue is the article's quality, not the its demographics.  —David Levy 05:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, even topics that aren't notable enough for inclusion could be FAs. FAs are judged solely on content, not on the topic. Technically, an article could be both on the main page as an FA and on AfD at the same time (and the AfD could even be in good faith)! --Rory096 05:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting FA status is one thing, and yes, all articles are worthy of it, but being on the main page is another.--Azer Red Si? 05:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: So, you think Pokemon is not a "notable cartoon"?--Eternal Imortal 16:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pokemon as it is, is very famous cartoon. Torchic is not IMHO. And it is totally irrelevant atleast. I suggest a policy change in this matter, so that only relevant or interesting articles are chosen for front page.-- Anupamsr|talk|contribs 21:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Both The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask and Final Fantasy X were main page articles this year, and in a relatively short distance between them (probably less than between Bulbasaur and Torchic), and you see no problem with that? Seriously, if you want to complain about featured articles, go bug Raul (it was his plan to put Torchic on the main page this month, with Bulbasaur in mind).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been 5 months since Bulbasaur. That's about 150 FAs apart; plenty of distance. Generally, the rule is only that similar topics don't go upon within a week or two of each other. —Cuiviénen 00:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: But next year we have to make room for Pikachu and Charizard.  Dragons flight 00:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder, why is it so bad about a Pokémon being on "Today's Featured Article"? I don't see a difference, just because it's fictitious and because it's a cartoon. It doesn't matter if it's a cartoon, the point is that it's featured, in my opinion. I mean, today's Article is a plant.  --Tohru Honda13Sign here! 01:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's true that Torchic isn't the first obscure article to be featured on the main page, and not much concern has been shown about articles on obscure subjects being featured until Torchic. Maybe some of us (myself included) are being a little poke-prejudiced. Featuring articles on obscure subjects is something that I can see people being legitimately concerned about, but if we are going to be so, then that concern shouldn't only be in effect when Pokemon articles are featured.--Azer Red Si? 21:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Pokemon were decided to be notable according to WP:N, so if they are very good articles, let them be featured. --Ineffable3000 22:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Bulbasaur, now this...? 

message: ...WHY? Akloki 04:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's obvious. Fnord.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It really is.--Eternal Imortal 16:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POKEMAN 

message: Why is an article about a type of Pokemon on the main page? The day's featured article should be something that a fairly wide range of people are familiar with, not something obscure that only a very specific group can relate to.--Azer Red Si? 04:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I just said something about this on the Torchic talk page.  That is not a requirement.  A featured article is a good article, one of Wikipedia's best, and is recognized as such.  Something that people can relate to is not a prerequisite.  Now, please, people, to everyone talking about this, ask yourself this question; don't you think the world has bigger problems than Wikipedia putting Torchic up as a featured article?  "Oh yes, there's a war in Iraq, several terrorist nations have nuclear weapons, globing warming is on the rise, but did you hear?  Wikipedia put Torchic up as a featured article!  Let's devote all our time and resources to complaining about it."  DoomsDay349 05:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially since every true academic mind I've met in real life is actually impressed that Wikipedia can feature such a wide range of topics, and presents the material on the main page in a balanced manner. This is a source for general information, and this article doesn't go into excessive detail. I wish people's arguements wouldn't be bended to appear more mature than they actually are just by criticizing topics with a fictional foundation. — Deckiller 05:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just like to say Thank God that tomorrow's FA is about a shrub.  Nothing controversial about that.  Though you never know...*gulp*. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DoomsDay349 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of shrubcruft. Cue the complaints. — Deckiller 05:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I used to believe, from my own experience editing them, that the botany articles were the quietest, most easy going place to edit on Wikipedia. My belief was SHATTERED when, one day, I found a vicious edit war on a botany article (sorry, I cannot remember which one). Raul654 05:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Banksia brownii sparked a very silly heated debate involving respected community members when it was nominated at WP:GA over WP:WIAGA criteria. There more pokemon FA than plant FA and half of the plant FA are two Banksia Gnangarra 05:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not against fictional material being on the main page, but I think that it should be such that a wide range of people could reasonably identify with it (e.g. Mickey Mouse), not something that only people deeply interested with a certain series would know anything about.--Azer Red Si? 05:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt very many people know about the Kengir uprising. Does that mean it shouldn't have appeared on the main page? --Rory096 05:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That was in July, not exactly recent. --Rory096 05:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  yeah, i mean, some could still say even in a year two pokemon articles are too much. i personally don't mind. --87.194.72.129 17:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The quick response to objections of this kind is: See Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#I think that today's featured article is awful. What can be done about it? - BanyanTree 15:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't need to like Pokemon but you heard of them and so has everybody else.--Eternal Imortal 16:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What is this awful shrub on the main page? I've never heard of it! How can Wikipedia have degenerated to featuring stupid, boring plants on the main page? I demand a recount! --Zeality 00:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torchic? 

message: What happened to the article on the English Language?It's now a red link or was yesterday at least.I asked this before but some people were confused by what i meant? Dermo69  13:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An administrator was removing a revision from the page history, which has to be done when someone posts personal information or violates copyright – Gurch 23:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a bit more detail at Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why is an article that is prominently linked from the Main Page missing? - BanyanTree 15:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: English Language Page

message: BANSKIA BROWNII?!!?! What is wikipedia doing having such an IMMATURE article being featured!!?!?!??!!?!?!?!?!!?!? I CAN'T BELIEVE IT! WHY!!!????????????
:Jesus Christ not again.  DoomsDay349 06:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to award a barnstar if, before the year is out, someone comes up with an original joke about the choice of the day's featured article; one that makes me laugh and hasn't been done four billion and six times before. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHAT?! 

message: ...is a point of view. I, for one, threw up when I saw that plant. --JohnO 04:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: correct its a point of view, its also supported by citation within the article body specifically in the cultivation section with reference #3. Gnangarra 08:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly, it does attract many birds and insects, as it is "a heavy producer of nectar". —Centrx→talk • 09:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attractive... 

message: question--12.72.32.40 04:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am wondering the same thing, also what do the green numbers in brackets mean? This is also showing up in my watchlist. Suicup 06:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is the size of the change in the number of characters (green = characters added; red = removed) Bwithh 06:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then, by god, that should be explained.  We have to keep our software user-friendly and clear at all times.  By the way, who thought this additional bit of information was important enough to clutter up user watchlist pages as well?  Badagnani 06:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's the number of bytes. This change was introduced over the last few days, so it probably is going to be updated soon. (Although the "user friendly and clear" kind of contradicts Bug 1...) As for who introduced it in watchlists, bug Leon. Titoxd(?!?) 06:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there going to be some sort of anouncement somewhere that tells us what they are? Because really that's going to confuse a lot of people. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 06:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It only takes an administrator with a bit of sense to add an explanation to MediaWiki:Recentchangestext; lo and behold, that's what has been done, except they only linked to the village pump; since discussions there are temporary someone's going to have to make a more permanent explanation at some point – Gurch 11:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what are those red numbers in recent changes 

message: i dont really see any difference bewteen the 2. both can hide revision. so what's the real difference. 07:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Revisions deleted by admins can be seen via Special:Undelete, those by oversight users cannot. Titoxd(?!?) 07:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In other words, revisions can be in one of three places; in the page history, in the deleted page history, or gone completely (still in the database, but only developers can see them). Revisions in the page history can be seen by everyone. The deleted page history is where all the edits to a page go when the page is deleted, and only administrators can see it; since any administrator can delete or restore a page, any administrator can move edits in or out of the deleted history, but they have to delete the page in order to do so. Oversight allows you to take edits directly out of the page history without deleting the page first, and once this has been done the edits are inaccessible even to users with oversight (in other words, unlike most actions on a wiki the action is irreversible without the intervention of a developer, which is why only a few trusted users have the ability to oversight revisions) – Gurch 11:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference bewteen oversight and admin 

message: What was that? Who put up the penis picture, and why has all the talk about it been removed? J Milburn 15:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some admin who can delete individual versions must have done it. I hope they found how it was done and prevented it, because I found nothing. The templates on the curent version were not vandalized.--HereToHelp 15:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that Wikipedia:POTD_row/December_24%2C_2006 was vadlaised since it was just protected a few minutes ago. I have no idea why the admin would have deleted the revision. Why not keep it since the image is already deleted anyways? Jeltz talk 15:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction, the vandalism but not the images are still there in the history. I just missed it. Jeltz talk 15:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The vandalism was of the whole page. EVERYTHING was covered by a huge image of a penis. J Milburn 15:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but that can be done through nice CSS tricks. Not sure if that was the case this time though. Jeltz talk 15:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  It was on there for long enough that I have to wonder how many people actually saw it, too. If anything could fuel the "imagine if a child saw this!!!!" issue, this is certainly it, vadalism or not. I think they take away the history (as opposed to simply reverting it) in extreme cases like this...but still...it seems weird that they are deleting the comments about it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 15:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the history of the discussion was also removed. I suspect that was by the same rogue admin who vandalised the main page. Who was it? Anyone gonna tell? J Milburn 15:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This history was not removed. -- tariqabjotu 16:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This image was not uploaded to Wikipedia. -- tariqabjotu 16:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't POTDs protected? It would sense that if the main page is protected, then so must be everything else displayed on the main page. The picture was up there for at least 10 minutes, and when you have such a busy site, the numbers must be in the thousands.... Cacofonie 15:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should have been protected before it went onto the Main Page. Obviously, it was overlooked. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said, to me it looked like the whole page had been covered by the picture, it wsasn't just the POTD that was changed. And yes, as it was protected, it must have been an admin who did this. J Milburn 16:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it was the same guy that left his seasons greetings on my talk page yesterday... he uploaded the image, insisted it was suitable for the body modification article, and afterwards insisted the image is perfectly okay. The image appeared on WP:AFC (where I noticed it and proceeded to take action) yesterday via divs added to the page source in the same fashion - over everything. --Ouro 15:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope, the page was protected after the vandalism, though it should have been protected before it went onto the Main Page. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Already, only admins can edit. J Milburn 16:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the problem was fixed fairly quickly, at least. This was obviously done by a registered user, and I'm sure somebody is already on their way to finding out who that is. Props to whoever it was on damage control on Christmas Eve...--SeanQuixote | talk | my contribs 16:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, the problem is that the main page includes other pages and sometimes people forget to protect those. Maybe a bot should protect the Featured Image template. The user was Panpel who is already banned by now. Jeltz talk 16:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: They were in wikimedia commons. --Majorly (Talk) 16:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing it up. --Ixfd64 04:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please start new discussions at the bottom - this topic is already being discussed. --Monotonehell 16:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The question still remains as to why comments here about it were being reverted... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes people will remove comments if their relevance has expired. The editor who removed the comments may have thought that. However, I endorse keeping these here at least a bit longer as people have questions. It may be a good idea to remove these at some point so potential vandals don't get any ideas as to how to add vandalism that is difficult to detect. -- tariqabjotu 16:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: They were probably chewed up by edit conflicts. I've already had to replace Tariq's post above. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Note what it says above that text: "Please start new discussions at the bottom of this talk page. Thank you." Comments about vandalism that is already being discussed added to the wrong part of the talk page will be removed, no questions asked. —Cuiviénen 16:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Anybody up for the drama of trying to get an admin bot approved so we can make sure all the templates used on the Main Page and TFA are protected?  It's got my support. - BanyanTree 17:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea. I would also say that protecting the templates would be a start. dposse 17:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always wanted a bot that automates the protection of such templates. --Ixfd64 04:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We already do all of that. The failure to protect this one daily template was a rare oversight. As for removing administrators, this is a volunteer project, no-one is obligated to do any particular job (with a very few exceptions such as Raul as the Featured Article Director and those who volunteer for the Arbitration Committee), so there is no one admin who can be desysopped for failing to protect a template. We could always commit collective hara-kiri and have the entire admin corps desysopped; I'm sure a number of users would be very happy to see that. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rare? It's the second Main Page penis this month. Such an event should be impossible. Templates on the Featured Article have been infested with phalluses in a regular basis over the last few weeks. Wikipedia is one of the world's most-visited websites. The Main Page is by far our most-visited page. This simply isn't good enough – Gurch 18:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: {I'm just glad that most vandals aren't smart enough to know how to do template vandalism.--Azer Red Si? 21:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm hoping that this bot request will go through and we will get a centralised list of all the pages that are going on the Main Page tomorrow, and whether they've been protected yet or not. That would make it far harder for pages to slip through. (This post also posted to the similar thread at WP:AN.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prqc, wikipedia is not censored. If kids come here and search for the penis article, they are going to find images of a penis. The same goes for the female breast. It is not anyones fault but the parents if their kid comes here and sees disturbing images. I agree that the vandalism has to stop, but i think your arguement goes too far. This is an encyclopedia, not the catholic church.  Having pictures of dicks a day before a christian holiday shouldn't mean anything here. Second, this penis vandalism isn't anything new. It's happened to the talk page before, and it happened to many articles on wikipedia. I know, because i was there at Steve Irwins article after his death when it was unprotected. It wasn't a pretty sight. dposse 19:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, actually it would. An unwanted picture of Ashlee Simpson on the Main Page would be confusing, and irritating for anyone wishing to use the Main Page, but it wouldn't make people recoil in horror, ban their kids from ever visiting the site and pelt us with complaints. However, it is safe to assume that if a high-visibility page is left unprotected, the worst that could possibly be done to it will happen before very long – Gurch 20:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia shouldn't be and is not responsible for what people see on this website. That should be and is the job of the parents of the children to censor what they can and cannot see. All we can do is make sure that we have a system in place that deals with vandals who decide to interupt the workings of this website. dposse 20:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it shouldn't. It's not about responsibility (at least not until someone sues us); however, that doesn't mean we can shrug off incidents that damage Wikipedia's public image. I don't know if this latest incident was reported in the media, but when they get hold of such a thing, it is. So far Wikipedia's popularity has done nothing but rise, but that could all too easily change – Gurch 22:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, i highly doubt anyone would sue wikipedia. If they did, it would get laughed outta court. This is an encyclopedia which is on the internet. Do people sue merriam-webster for having "fuck" in there? No, of course not. dposse 22:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Censorship is overrated. --Ineffable3000 22:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I actually agreed with just about everything you just said, Prqc. Vandalism should be stopped as soon as it happens, and we should do everything in our power to stop it. Like i said before, as long as we keep a accurate system in place, we should be fine. I just disagree with your comment that wikipedia should censor itself because children come onto this website, and your indignation at it happening on christmas eve. We deserve, especially on the internet, to have the free exchange of ideas and infomation. dposse 23:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and also, those penis images weren't ones that are stored in Wikipedia's image repository. They were uploaded by the vandal and have since been deleted, some thing which makes an older proposal of mine that newly registered accounts not be allowed to upload images look pretty darn good if you ask me.--Azer Red Si? 23:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't work with Commons since the whole point of registering there is basically to upload material.  Dragons flight 23:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Banning IPs is often suggested but routinely rejected.  Most edits submitted by IPs are legitimate (something like 80-90%).  While IPs, as a class, may account for more vandalism than registered users, it is generally thought that forcing registration is more likely to discourage the good IP contributors than it is to actually be effective at stopping vandalism.  All of the recent vandalism seen here, for example, was done by a vandal who registered an account.  Dragons flight 23:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: dposse, I agree with you on your ideas regarding the free flow of information...I wasn't referring to censorship as the way out, it isn't. My main point was, which may have been open to interpretation, was the fact that we need to ensure that as many users as possible have the ability to responsibly alter content on Wikipedia. I agree with you, censorship, in whatever guise, would spell a certain reduction of quality in terms of contributions. Prqc 02:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a bit of additional info: the uploader was also blocked (and IP-blocked) from the Commons. —UED77 01:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks like in this case Wikipedia policy wasn't really at fault for what happened. The vandal was just very crafty. Unfortunately I'm sure that a lot of people are going to put all of the blame on Wikipedia. I wonder how donations have been doing since that incident.--Azer Red Si? 22:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: That was a sick image uploaded by some sick individual.  Whoever viewed that would be scarred for years, if not for life.  Can we urge Wikipedia to lock the main page everyday and not allow any major changes to it unless it's by an administrator or a tested wikipedia writer? -Eendrani 15:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Already, only admins can edit. J Milburn 16:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the problem was fixed fairly quickly, at least. This was obviously done by a registered user, and I'm sure somebody is already on their way to finding out who that is. Props to whoever it was on damage control on Christmas Eve...--SeanQuixote | talk | my contribs 16:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, the problem is that the main page includes other pages and sometimes people forget to protect those. Maybe a bot should protect the Featured Image template. The user was Panpel who is already banned by now. Jeltz talk 16:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: They were in wikimedia commons. --Majorly (Talk) 16:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing it up. --Ixfd64 04:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock Main Page from Edit? 

message: *No doubt I'm putting this in the wrong place and in the wrong format.  However, I'll still make a go of it until you delete me in a few min.
I would like to know who decides what is obscene on Wikipedia.  I found the articles to be more informative the many "Encyclopedia" websites due to the fact that they appear to be uncensored and written without regards to Political Correctness.
I also see it mentioned that some bad pics have been posted.  I cannot tell if this was due to vandalism or due to so religious crazy being offened.
And one last point.  Don't write   .....won an award this year, or make mention of "this year".  Or else at least append a date to it.  When you read an article saying "this year" and you cannot find a date, it is quite maddending.
Thank You.
69.1.59.67Idrinkwine
* I just wrote a 'disscussion' on those 2 mutated penis pictures on the top page. . . and someone deleted it! What was it about? It was disgusting - can we even edit the homepage? was it a hack? Please someone tell me! User:JoWal
:Please start new discussions at the bottom - this topic is already being discussed. --Monotonehell 16:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutated Penis? Deleted? 

message: There was no rogue admin that caused the vandalism on the Main Page. What happened was that a template transcluded on the Main Page was not protected (by accident; it was just overlooked). Around 15:30 (UTC), someone spotted the vulnerability and used several sneaky tactics to make the vandalism difficult to spot and fix. This is the result of an error on the part of the admins who did not see the template was not protected. However, realize this is extremely rare. The vandalism of the particular template was not actually removed. If you find it, that's great. However, I'm not going to explain it so that other vandals do not use the devious technique. -- tariqabjotu 16:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question still remains as to why comments here about it were being reverted... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes people will remove comments if their relevance has expired. The editor who removed the comments may have thought that. However, I endorse keeping these here at least a bit longer as people have questions. It may be a good idea to remove these at some point so potential vandals don't get any ideas as to how to add vandalism that is difficult to detect. -- tariqabjotu 16:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: They were probably chewed up by edit conflicts. I've already had to replace Tariq's post above. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ending Some Speculation

message: Well here is one particular instance of comments being deleted... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ihmhi (talk • contribs) 16:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note what it says above that text: "Please start new discussions at the bottom of this talk page. Thank you." Comments about vandalism that is already being discussed added to the wrong part of the talk page will be removed, no questions asked. —Cuiviénen 16:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism Comments Disappearing

message: More penis vandalism? Am I really going to have to start checking every template myself? Enough. Get your act together. – Gurch 16:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody up for the drama of trying to get an admin bot approved so we can make sure all the templates used on the Main Page and TFA are protected?  It's got my support. - BanyanTree 17:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea. I would also say that protecting the templates would be a start. dposse 17:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always wanted a bot that automates the protection of such templates. --Ixfd64 04:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We already do all of that. The failure to protect this one daily template was a rare oversight. As for removing administrators, this is a volunteer project, no-one is obligated to do any particular job (with a very few exceptions such as Raul as the Featured Article Director and those who volunteer for the Arbitration Committee), so there is no one admin who can be desysopped for failing to protect a template. We could always commit collective hara-kiri and have the entire admin corps desysopped; I'm sure a number of users would be very happy to see that. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rare? It's the second Main Page penis this month. Such an event should be impossible. Templates on the Featured Article have been infested with phalluses in a regular basis over the last few weeks. Wikipedia is one of the world's most-visited websites. The Main Page is by far our most-visited page. This simply isn't good enough – Gurch 18:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: {I'm just glad that most vandals aren't smart enough to know how to do template vandalism.--Azer Red Si? 21:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm hoping that this bot request will go through and we will get a centralised list of all the pages that are going on the Main Page tomorrow, and whether they've been protected yet or not. That would make it far harder for pages to slip through. (This post also posted to the similar thread at WP:AN.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prqc, wikipedia is not censored. If kids come here and search for the penis article, they are going to find images of a penis. The same goes for the female breast. It is not anyones fault but the parents if their kid comes here and sees disturbing images. I agree that the vandalism has to stop, but i think your arguement goes too far. This is an encyclopedia, not the catholic church.  Having pictures of dicks a day before a christian holiday shouldn't mean anything here. Second, this penis vandalism isn't anything new. It's happened to the talk page before, and it happened to many articles on wikipedia. I know, because i was there at Steve Irwins article after his death when it was unprotected. It wasn't a pretty sight. dposse 19:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, actually it would. An unwanted picture of Ashlee Simpson on the Main Page would be confusing, and irritating for anyone wishing to use the Main Page, but it wouldn't make people recoil in horror, ban their kids from ever visiting the site and pelt us with complaints. However, it is safe to assume that if a high-visibility page is left unprotected, the worst that could possibly be done to it will happen before very long – Gurch 20:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia shouldn't be and is not responsible for what people see on this website. That should be and is the job of the parents of the children to censor what they can and cannot see. All we can do is make sure that we have a system in place that deals with vandals who decide to interupt the workings of this website. dposse 20:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it shouldn't. It's not about responsibility (at least not until someone sues us); however, that doesn't mean we can shrug off incidents that damage Wikipedia's public image. I don't know if this latest incident was reported in the media, but when they get hold of such a thing, it is. So far Wikipedia's popularity has done nothing but rise, but that could all too easily change – Gurch 22:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, i highly doubt anyone would sue wikipedia. If they did, it would get laughed outta court. This is an encyclopedia which is on the internet. Do people sue merriam-webster for having "fuck" in there? No, of course not. dposse 22:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Censorship is overrated. --Ineffable3000 22:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I actually agreed with just about everything you just said, Prqc. Vandalism should be stopped as soon as it happens, and we should do everything in our power to stop it. Like i said before, as long as we keep a accurate system in place, we should be fine. I just disagree with your comment that wikipedia should censor itself because children come onto this website, and your indignation at it happening on christmas eve. We deserve, especially on the internet, to have the free exchange of ideas and infomation. dposse 23:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and also, those penis images weren't ones that are stored in Wikipedia's image repository. They were uploaded by the vandal and have since been deleted, some thing which makes an older proposal of mine that newly registered accounts not be allowed to upload images look pretty darn good if you ask me.--Azer Red Si? 23:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't work with Commons since the whole point of registering there is basically to upload material.  Dragons flight 23:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Banning IPs is often suggested but routinely rejected.  Most edits submitted by IPs are legitimate (something like 80-90%).  While IPs, as a class, may account for more vandalism than registered users, it is generally thought that forcing registration is more likely to discourage the good IP contributors than it is to actually be effective at stopping vandalism.  All of the recent vandalism seen here, for example, was done by a vandal who registered an account.  Dragons flight 23:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: dposse, I agree with you on your ideas regarding the free flow of information...I wasn't referring to censorship as the way out, it isn't. My main point was, which may have been open to interpretation, was the fact that we need to ensure that as many users as possible have the ability to responsibly alter content on Wikipedia. I agree with you, censorship, in whatever guise, would spell a certain reduction of quality in terms of contributions. Prqc 02:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh, for god's sake, people...

message: Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandalism on Main Page, and please report vandalism like this to the Administrators' incidents noticeboard in future. Thanks.
For the record, the vandal uploaded images to Commons, and put the images in an unprotected template (the POTD one mentioned above). The initial vandalism lasted 8 minutes, was reverted, the vandal re-added the vandalism, this lasted 3 minutes before being reverted, the vandal re-added it again and this time it lasted 1 minute. Then, finally, the unprotected template was protected and the vandal blocked indefinitely. Carcharoth 19:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a bit of additional info: the uploader was also blocked (and IP-blocked) from the Commons. —UED77 01:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks like in this case Wikipedia policy wasn't really at fault for what happened. The vandal was just very crafty. Unfortunately I'm sure that a lot of people are going to put all of the blame on Wikipedia. I wonder how donations have been doing since that incident.--Azer Red Si? 22:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The real discussion took place at WP:ANI

message: I've written and posted something on this general issue here. Please comment there on how you think we can tighten up the checks and balances we need to have in place. Carcharoth 22:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Follow-up proposal

message: Haha...look at this . It almost feels weird that this page has not been vandalized at all today (so far). If you want a solution to vandalism, then make every day a major religious holiday. :-D Nishkid64 01:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's good though, no vandalism!  But doesn't that also mean that only us workaholics are on at this time?  No newbies or anons?  Happy Holidays, be sure to spend some time with the family! :) Cbrown1023 01:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (knocks on wood...) Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is because people are too stupid to make up a clever form of vandalism for Clement of Dublane. --Ineffable3000 02:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been picking up as of late. It's not like you have to be clever in order to vandalize (the most recent I saw was "PENIS PENIS PENIS POOP").--Azer Red Si? 04:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Or maybe because Clement was a Dominican friar, and that has to do with Christianity. Nishkid64 02:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, Raul made a good decision of choosing that article as Today's featured article. And the picture I nominated will be the featured picture the 25th. --Ineffable3000 04:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our day off 

message: Not to repeat everything. But the thing is still on, or again. As the christmas tree. Maybe someone could remove it? Thanks. --Ben  T/C  10:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Already fixed. And I see that now all images on the main page are protected. Wise decision. Ben  T/C  10:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *sigh* – Gurch 11:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How come I never see any of this? lol --Howard the Duck 11:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you ever do, you'll wish you hadn't, trust me – Gurch 12:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this the same moron from yesterday at it again?--Azer Red Si? 21:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be surprised if it were. --Ixfd64 01:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  again mutated penis 

message: I noticed the top category was changed from 250k to 300k. Why was it changed to this? I was hoping to see Dutch jump up to the top tier soon :( Under Logic 11:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as what I've expected. --Howard the Duck 11:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  largest wikipedia list 

message: Hi I was just having fund reading random articles and I noticed that the article Midlands_State_University seems to be messed up.
I was curious where do I alert registered users of this so that they can revert it?. Is there some special page where unregistered users can report vandalism?. It would be a great idea to at least have such a page in the navigation box so it would be much simpler for everyone to help make wikipedia better.
(yes I know I could just register but I don't want to... at least not yet ;) )
* you can revert the vandalism yourself! look at the top of the page, there's a history tab. click it and find a previous version of the page. then click edit this page, and save the page to revert it. 12:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. In other words, you don't need to register in order to edit'! Hence the "anyone can edit" – Gurch 12:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: haha stupid me :) Thanks a lot, now the vandalism is also reverted so everyone should be happy now I guess! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.213.169.193 (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special page to report vandalsim for non registered users?! 

message: Just minor but shouldn't it have something to do with Christmas as today is Christmas Day...? Simply south 14:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that more than half the world is christian, i think you are mistaken. Anyway, what i think you meant was that christmas isn't notable for the front page just because christians celebrate it. dposse 14:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not really just only christians who celebrate it, just to say. Simply south 14:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... it's about a Catholic bishop, so it's a Christian topic, on a Christian holiday. That's enough of a connection, I think – Gurch 15:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: True, most people aren't - actually some not most, but excluding non-religious people (like me ;) who still jump on the christmas bandwagon... oh well...) the biggest religion is christianity by far. I think it's worth mentioning it in OTD. 84.64.226.4 16:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? What's notable about it this year? dposse 16:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's acknowledged by millions of people, that's what. 84.64.226.4 16:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true. However, that's meaningless since they celebrate it every year. dposse 16:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's mentioned in On This Day as a holiday. There is a related news item in Did You Know. Today's Featured Article is a Christianity-related topic. This should be sufficient; Wikipedia must remain neutral every day of the year (and, sorry dposse, two thirds of the world is not Christian). -- tariqabjotu 16:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: dposse, I suggest you research your facts before making statements like that. Roughly 30% of the world observes some of Christianity, and that basically translates to 2,000,000,000 followers. The world has around 6.5 billion people, so there are easily more non-believers than believers. Nishkid64 19:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And I previously stated (look a few sections up) that the FA wasn't getting any vandalism in the first two hours possibly because it was a Christianity-related topic. Well, now it's getting hit, but it's still not that heavy. Nishkid64 19:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it also true to say that a large percentage of people whos primary language is English practice Christian religion? I mean, this is in fact the English Wikipedia.  MadHistorian 19:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it's unsourced at English language, only 350 million speak English as their first language, and I would assume many of those people practice Christianity. My point was about dposse's comments about Christianity in the world, not about Christianity here on the English language Wikipedia. Nishkid64 19:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Getting back to the original question, I'm sure that under ideal circumstances, a Christmas-themed TFA would be gracing the Main Page today, but sadly no-one's gotten around to writing one in the past year. Since Raul has only a limited pool of topics to choose from, it'd been a case of picking the best from the ones available. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Christmas used to be a featured article, and it has been on the Main Page on Christmas before, but it was removed as a featured article because it fell far below modern standards. —Cuiviénen 23:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About the non-believers outweighing the believers, it's true they do, but the 4.5 billion are spread thinner than the semi-united 2 billion Christians.  I could say more but I'd get myself all deep south preacher pissed off and insult many billions of people.  DoomsDay349 00:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Although Christmas day is past where I am, just to clarify according to wikipedia article Christian: "It is estimated that there are around 2.1 billion Christians in the world making up 33% of the world population, with the largest Christian denomination being Roman Catholicism." 
Also consider the amount of non Christians who appreciate the Christmas holiday as a time of goodwill and not as a religious holidays; certianly millions of people. The fact of the matter is Christmas in the modern world is not just a religious holiday, its a cultural holiday as well; one based on traditions and activities that are more commercial than religious. And although the non believers clearly weigh out the believers/followers, Christmas is an important part of human life in the Western (and not just English) World! So why should we not feature a Christmas related article on the main page on an encyclopedia that acknowledges all aspects of human life (whether its a small school in a place no ones heard or a holiday that billions of people know of? I suppose what I want to say is this; the ultimate aim of wikipedia is surely the diffusion of knowledge; so wheres the harm in diffusing some knowledge thats related to something we've all heard of on a day thats important to the knowledge of its subject! Merry Christmas. LordHarris 02:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's Article 

message: Please correct the errors discussed on the Crab Nebula featured picture discussion page. --Ineffable3000 20:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong? Another penis vandal? dposse 21:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Light years wide instead of light years away. --Ineffable3000 21:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A wrong picture? That's kinda rare. dposse 21:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it correct now? It says light years wide now. Nishkid64 21:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. :)  --Ineffable3000 21:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crab Nebula 

message: Can someone wikify it, as the page is protected? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lakinekaki (talk • contribs) 10:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was decided by past consensus that the link to Wikipedia which contains links to all the terms is enough. Having many links in the title was considered too cluttered. --Monotonehell 11:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Lakinekaki 11:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikifying encyclopedia in subtitle 

message: Re: Can someone PLEASE take that big ass donation thing off the top of the page? 
Please? - Anonymous, 2:13 12/17.06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.19.12.207 (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just click the "dismiss" link to the right of it.  That sets a cookie that will prevent the donation bar from appearing.  If you do not have a cookie-enabled browser, however, I guess you're out of luck --Jmax- 22:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus you have to be a registered user. Chris as I am Chris 22:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's supposed to be intrusive. If it's easily ignored, people won't get guilted/annoyed into contributing.  See pledge drive for background on the annoyance factor, though people outside the U.S. that have state-funded public stations may find this whole idea weird. - BanyanTree 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Believe it or not, in previous fund drives, people have looked at the size of the notice vs. the number of donations, and it actually does increase donations significantly to make it slightly more intrusive.  It's a bit of a pain, but it's worth it for the Foundation.  Ral315 (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, if this is an arms race of sorts, does this mean it will take up half the screen, flash and play jingle-bells in two years' time? I find it bearable still, but the 'dismiss' link will prompt many people in reflexively switching it off without even looking at it -- so maybe a small bar that cannot be switched off will turn out to produce a greater effect than a big annoying banner you switch off and forget §about in two seconds. dab (𒁳) 10:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it won't. For starters, not all English Wikipedia readers are Christian or in the Northern Hemisphere, and thus Jingle Bells is irrelevant. Anyway, take a look at the pledge drive. As you may seem, there's multiple people/organizations matching donations, something we have never had before. This trend will continue, and will mean our goals are reached quicker. There is no other way to keep Wikimedia running as one of the top 10 most visited websites internationally, other than soliciting money. So get over it.  --  Zanimum 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For example, I like it, and I enjoy refreshing the browser sometimes just to see how much it did increase. :) --V. Szabolcs 20:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: i just use adblock to remove them... The Uber Ninja 09:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're logged in just press "dismiss". --Monotonehell 09:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yes, and adblock shouldn't be able to remove it, as it's hosted on-site.  --  Zanimum 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh... why not? The Adblock extension for Firefox, and most other decent ad blockers, can block individual scripts, images or objects without blocking an entire site – Gurch 23:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Stop complaining from an IP. Follow WP:DICK. --Ineffable3000 03:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think you can classify objecting to begging notices as being a dick. I mean, the guy even said please. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he really cared about the Wikipedia project, he would get an account, would do many legitimate edits, and wouldn't be here complaining about minor flaws. --Ineffable3000 21:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but I wouldn't call him a dick.  Ironically, directing thing him a link to an article just to say "don't be a dick" is alot more dickish than asking for a way to get rid of the banner.DarkGhost89 08:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does telling someone to stop being a fucking douchebag compare?  --Cyde Weys 04:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: He has a Point, nevertheless...82.171.188.144 14:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  donation thing at the top of the page 

message: how much do i need to donate to have a article of myself? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wtfmaaan (talk • contribs) 08:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that that's not how Wikipedia works. Unless your donation is huge enough to be covered by multiple news agencies, it will not in itself confer the required notability for an article on you. If you want to be covered by Wikipedia, your best bet is to do something unique or notable ennough for the media and world at large to take notice of you. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 08:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and there was me thinking my 50p would get me an article.  MFlet1 09:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You can, of course, make yourself a user page for nothing; just go to User:Wtfmaaan and start typing – Gurch 11:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you mean, DFTTmaaan. dab (𒁳) 11:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Funny, I thought people were paying for the continued pleasure of having and being able to contribute to an online encyclopedia.  The project as a whole is primarily financed by donations.  Dragons flight 16:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Read WP:VAIN. However, if you donate a billion dollars, CNN might do a 30-second shot about you, and you might get a stub article. --Ineffable3000 21:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I would venture a guess that a $1 billion donation will get more then a stub. Nil Einne 17:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  how much do i need to donate? 

message: The banner that runs across all pages asking for donations to the Wikimedia Foundation clashes with the co-ordinates for cities at the top of their pages. It would be good if someone who knows how to do it could sort this. Thanks. Itsmejudith 11:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that really the best place for coordinates? Wouldn't it be better with the rest of the article? Koweja 01:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the position of coordinates generated by , etc are absolute on the page, rather than relative to the title of the page.  In previous funding drives the location was just moved down temporarily, but I have no idea what sort of workaround is possible when some users see the banner and some do not.  I have asked this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#donations banner. - BanyanTree 03:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positioning of appeal banner 

message: it reads:
:Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
 articles in English
I think it'd look better with the last line:
:Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
 articles and counting
I think that'd look better, non? (I don't know why the formatting is off.) → JARED (t)  16:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather we didn't - we're focusing on the quality of our articles rather than the quantity at the moment. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it could hurt to make this tiny change, but perhaps the phrase "and counting" does put a bit too much emphasis on quantity over quality. I do think that a link like this would be useful in getting people to start a new article. --Ihmhi 16:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Ihmhi on that Samaster1991 16:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because we don't want people to start new articles. Seriously, we don't. We want people to improve existing ones. We get far too many junk articles that then have to be deleted as it is, without encouraging more of them. It would be better, in fact, to remove the article count from the Main Page altogether; this was extensively discussed and for a time it wasn't there at all. Whereas in the early days of Wikipedia it was necessary to focus on the number of articles in order to increase basic coverage of important topics, the project now has more than enough articles, and the focus has shifted, as Sam Blanning mentioned, to improving existing articles rather than creating new ones. Also, anonymous users can't start articles at all (this was necessary to stem the aforementioned flood of junk articles) so this would be unhelpful – Gurch 16:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we don't want people to start new articles, why not just disable it? Should be easy enough, because unregistered users could't start new articles, so just expand it to include all registered users too. Then if something new happens that is encyclopedic (Olympic Games, presidential elections, etc.) nobody could start a new article and pretty soon Wikipedia will be so far behind that Citizendium could finally be the ultimate online encyclopedia. Thank you Wikipedia! --Gunsfornuns 17:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Straw man. - BanyanTree 17:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No straw man at all. He did say "we don't want people to start new articles. Seriously, we don't". If you think I take it out of context, read Gurch's response again and see if he actually says otherwise.--Gunsfornuns 20:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment in question was not intended to be taken literally.  Gurch meant that we want to encourage people to invest more effort in improving existing articles than in creating new ones.  The proposed wording would have the opposite effect.  —David Levy 18:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We want people to create verified, neutral articles on topics of encyclopaedic interest; the Main Page is not for us, it's for our readers (the vast majority of Wikipedia's traffic), and the vast majority of them won't have any inclination, nor the ability, to do that. We already have links to the Introduction and the Help Pages, which is a much better path towards editing to follow. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what he said--Gunsfornuns 18:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We do want people to create new appropriate articles if they wish, or improve existing ones if that's what they wish.--Azer Red Si? 21:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what he said either--Gunsfornuns 18:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Ah, people have been arguing about what I said rather than the actual issue at hand. That'll teach me to reply to things. On an unrelated note, how did that "WWWWikipedia" get into my comment? It wasn't in my original post – Gurch 19:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably, a test edit went unreverted at some point.  —David Levy 19:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In addition to the de-emphasis of quantity and problematic nature of the proposed link, this exact wording was proposed and rejected during the recent main page redesign process.  As I noted at the time, the phrase "and counting" is a figure of speech that would seem confusing or nonsensical to some people for whom English is not a primary language.  Also, the "in English" wording was included to avoid falsely conveying that all of the Wikipedias combined contain only  articles.  —David Levy 17:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
 articles in English and counting
It adds the nice extra bit and doesn't provide misinformation. --Muna 02:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "As I noted at the time, the phrase "and counting" is a figure of speech that would seem confusing or nonsensical to some people for whom English is not a primary language." You could change it to so far or at this time --Muna 02:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't we just put the "and counting" part at all Wikipedia's indifferent of the language, that should solve all problems.--Eternal Imortal 13:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your suggestion.  —David Levy 18:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top of main page 

message: This isn't really a big deal, but if you look on the side under navigation, the first link is to the "Main page" with lowercase p. The p is supposed to be capitalized, i.e. "Main Page". --75.20.219.75 17:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if this is deliberate, but I suspect it might be - Wikipedia:Community Portal has the same mismatch between capitalisation in the title and on the sidebar. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is, in fact, deliberate.  (Also note that a Community portal link has existed on the main page since March.)  Both Main Page and Wikipedia:Community Portal are inconsistent with our MoS-prescribed naming conventions and the titles of other project pages.  We've retained the former for logistical reasons.  I've proposed that the latter be changed.  —David Levy 18:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page 

message: What time zone is Wikipedia run from? For example, I would assume that the featured stuff on the main page is changed around midnight, but midnight in what time zone? If there is no set time zone Wikipedia runs on, then that should be taken into consideration. Seldon1 04:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's servers are located in Florida, which is in the North American Eastern Time Zone, but Wikipedia uses Coordinated Universal Time as its default. —Cuiviénen 04:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Yes, it changes when it's 4:00pm in Los Angeles (5p in the summer), 7:00pm in New York (8p in the summer), 9:00pm in Rio de Janeiro, 12:00am in London (1a in the summer), 1:00am in Paris (2a in the summer), 2:00am in Jerusalem, 3:00am in Moscow, 4:00am in Dubai, 5:30am in Mumbai, 7:00am in Bangkok, 8:00am in Beijing, 9:00am in Tokyo, 11:00am in Sydney (10a in the winter), 1:00pm in Wellington (12p in the winter). -- tariqabjotu 04:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I live in the UK and so my time zone is UTC, but everytime I make and edit say, 11:34pm, 22 Dec. and then I go to my Watchlist and Wikipedia tells me I made this edit on 12:34am, 23 Dec. AxG</font>  (talk)  12:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check your preferences and set the time offset (in the date and time section) to zero. --Cherry blossom tree 15:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: During Daylight Savings Time, the UK does not observe UTC. —Cuiviénen 16:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed we do not. But we are in UTC at the moment – Gurch 23:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you reset your offset to 0 or not? Nil Einne 13:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did. AxG</font>  (talk)  23:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry I didn't read the thread properly. I thought you were the one saying we're in UTC at the moment and therefore you meant you still had the problem. I'm guessing it did work. Nil Einne 15:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Standard Time 

message: : Moved to Wikipedia talk:Five pillars. --15:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia: Five Pillars 

message: The wikipedia globe image contains wrong devnagari symbol for "wi".
The correct one should be : 
 
- Vishalmungi 14:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. They're meant to be specific symbols? I thought they were just random letters from different alphabets – Gurch 14:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're all "W" or "Wi" sounds (or a close equivalent). I think there is a better place to bring this up, but I'm not sure where. —Cuiviénen 16:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to User:Ambuj.Saxena/Wikipedia-logo and its talk page.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 16:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This came up once before as the Japanese katakana at the top is "kwi" and someone thought "wi" was meant, as it's only one stroke away.  It eventually came back that the letters were chosen pretty much randomly, though the "W" is confusing. - BanyanTree 17:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, why did the logo creator choose "W" for the English letter?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. Why not ask him? – Gurch 18:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The backstory is at :meta:Meta:Historical/Logo history, though the actual meaning of the letters/characters is not mentioned. - BanyanTree 19:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If it's wrong that's cool, it represents the inaccurate information in Wikipedia :) --WikiSlasher 00:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: hah, now that is representative of Wikipedia. If we have to choose between shiny templates, icons, bells and whistles on one hand and actual accuracy of content on the other, our choice is obvious! dab (𒁳) 16:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The logo is a trademark of the Wikipedia Foundation. It is not subject to the same editing policies as Wikipedia content. Even if someone were to make an acceptable replacement image, any change to the logo will have to be subject to the approval of the board. Nohat 20:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we will have to tell the board.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong devnagari symbol for "wi" in Wikipedia's logo

message: I just noticed that users on English Wikipedia now have made 100,128,601 edits. --Camptown 16:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you get that figure from? Simply south 16:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia Statistics --Camptown 16:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any idea on what the 100 millionth edit was? (Then again, that would be hard to find). Simply south 16:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that day when we celebrated 1,500,000 articles? How did we calculate that?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 16:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone narrowed it down to three new stubs and then waited for two to be AFDed ;) --Monotonehell 17:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I guess we'll have to work our way back recent changes to determine the edit. =( Ed ¿Cómo estás? 17:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yipes! Good luck. Simply south 17:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait! It says that there are 1,552,539 articles, not 100,000,000! Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 18:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 100,000,000 edits not articles. BTW the millionth article was measured exactly, unlike the 1.5 millionth. Prodego talk 18:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not 1.5? Just H 02:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't important. Apart from the fact that it's not as round a number as 1,000,000, the 1,000,000th article and the Wikimania convention shortly afterwards were the cue for a shifting of focus onto quality of articles rather than quantity. 10,000 featured articles will be more of a milestone than 10,000,000 articles. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 100,000,000+ edits 

message: Your donation thing just dropped by 200 000 dollars. I saw this and did not know who to tell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Conrad.Irwin (talk • contribs) 21:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a stock donation, apparently according to the live list of donations. They might have excluded this from the total, it could be phony, or some other reason. I'm sure we will find out what's going on within the hour. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, see my comment at WP:VPN#Massive_donation.3F. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 22:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A NEGATIVE DONATION WAS JUST MADE 

message: Woohoo! Does that mean I can go in there and put in a negative number and they'd actually pay me? I gave them around 3500 edits, it only seems fair. :-) Just H 01:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice!

message: I didn't even scroll down to see the whole picture, but I'm pretty sure whatever is at the bottom of the page is vandalism. ShadowUltra 23:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Admin on Wheels? Just H 02:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there room for a bot that would run on Main Page/Tomorrow, check the page and give a list of templates that need to be protected? RHB 00:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot doing User:Shadowbot2/Report would appear to be the best bet for a request.  I've already asked if it can check for templates used in the text at Template:Did you know/Next update.  More admins watching that report would be appreciated. - BanyanTree 01:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: I managed to scroll away before I saw much of it, but there's some sort of major vandalism on the main page. I remember this happened a few days ago. Can someone fix it? ...again? RememberMe? 23:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Admin on Wheels? Just H 02:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there room for a bot that would run on Main Page/Tomorrow, check the page and give a list of templates that need to be protected? RHB 00:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot doing User:Shadowbot2/Report would appear to be the best bet for a request.  I've already asked if it can check for templates used in the text at Template:Did you know/Next update.  More admins watching that report would be appreciated. - BanyanTree 01:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism on the mainpage...again 

message: ::Um, Virgin Unite is a charitable organization.  What do you mean by "commercial leverage"? — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Virgin (the parent company) is not.--Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 01:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dark Shikari, you think they'd get the same amount of donations if they didn't have the Virgin logo there, or just called themselves "Unite" rather than "Virgin Unite"? Just because it looks like it's non-profit doesn't mean they're doing it for free, they're putting that logo up there for exposure, which in itself assists their parent company to...get profit. Just H 01:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They have Virgin Unite in a .co.uk domain rather than .org.uk, so they apparently regard it as more of a company than a nonprofit organization. *Dan T.* 01:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't put too much stock in that.  I try to run my websites on .com domains, even though they are utterly non-commercial (like just a blog).  .com is more popular than .net and .org, and .co.uk is certainly more popular than .org.uk.  It's not like there's any kind of strict rules on this stuff anyway.  Anyone can buy a .com, .net, or .org and use it for any purpose.  --Cyde Weys 01:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Domain misuse is one of my big pet peeves, as documented on my Domain Site.  And I go out of my way to use non-dot-com domains for all of my noncommercial sites (as does Wikipedia as well; note that it's at wikipedia.org). *Dan T.* 03:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ditto, thanks to whoever did that. Just H 02:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comment was brought to you by Coca Cola and Microsoft.... :-) Just H 03:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Because of this, a charitable, knowledge-loving organization will get a bunch of attention and Wikipedia will get funding to continue. It's a win / win situation. --Zeality 03:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any problem with that, the problem I have is trying to sneak it in up there, and the potential bias against Virgin's article now. If we can be open about this ad and the POV on the Virgin article, then fine, but it shouldn't be construed in any way that Virgin is the official whatever of Wikipedia. Just H 03:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the FAQ for a related topic; there is absolutely no official association between Wikimedia and any of the companies sponsoring matching donations that will affect or impact any content in any manner. It should be explicitly clear that Virgin is not related to Wikimedia in any way except for their generosity in giving us matching donations; which part do you think needs clarification? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand everything, but - say what you want - to me it still looks very much like an ad. I kinda know it kinda isn't so, but that's the way it looks like. Period. --Ouro 07:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that Wikipedia isn't endorsed by Virgin, and vice versa, but with the two logos right next to each other like that, it certainly might look that way to the casual observer... opinions? Dreaded Walrus 09:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Part of the Convo

message: Appalling to say the least! Richard Branson and Wikifoundation should know better. Is this the first time Wikipedia has sanctioned a border-line commercial (or a "commercial message") on page 1? And - why didn't Virgin Unite accept to act as an anonymous contributor? Camptown 09:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have they forgot about WikiProject No ads? Oh, I just saw the discussions above but IMO I still don't trust that Virgin logo. GizzaChat © 10:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What special treatment? If you want to match donations, I'm sure they will say "All donations received today will be matched by Camptown". Of course, any wikipedia article on you will have to establish notability as does the Virgin Unite article Nil Einne 14:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  --  Zanimum 17:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep Wikipedia free from commercials!

message: So people, if you're so appalled by corporation-related charities doing matching grants, I'm sure that you have a list of other organizations that offer matching. Come on, cough the list up.  --  Zanimum 17:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternatives?

message: Re:Teaching Bots The Difference Between Edits with Tildes And Edits That Don't Need Them
I was wondering if this was possible. I just tried to clean up the convo up there and it signed my name, screwing up the point of the edit. Just H 02:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the diff. Just H 02:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A -- generally means that it is a user comment. It is rarely used otherwise. --Ineffable3000 02:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Just H, you'll probably get a better response from the bot's operator/owner at User talk:Hagerman#Possible improvement rather than complaining here on Talk:MainPage. --PFHLai 06:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bots gone wild...

message: Within a matter of seconds, the amount of money listed in the box at the top jumped over $200,000!. I checked the live list of donors, knowing it wasn't Virgin Unite, who was matching todays donations, because I don't think we had raised that much today. It says an anonymous person made over a 200,000 dollar donation. I really don't know why someone would anonymously donate that much, so is it possible that someone faked it (used a false credit card, etc.) or something? --(trying to get 1,000 edits in 1 month!) TeckWizTalkContribs@ 03:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We must have a very generous donor, or a very mean person.  DoomsDay349 03:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Or the check from the anonymous donor that had offered to match donations earlier in the week was cashed. Titoxd(?!?) 03:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This donation is from the anonymous donor that was matching donations for a couple of days.  It's not really possible for someone to fake the number anyway; the number only reflects charges that have been approved by the credit companies.  --Cyde Weys 03:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed this earlier today as well. The donation meter jumped from about 350k to 500k, and then moved back down eventually. Weird. (That guy's donation was $286,800.00!) Cheers, PullToOpenTalk 03:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I almost changed my mind, but then I figured Jimbo would send me a really good Christmas card next year...Just H 03:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, it's become a rather costly product placement. :-) Just H 03:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The anonymous donor was specified in the sitenotice as well, it just said an anonymous friend. Also, I'm pretty sure Virgin won't be paying for this because 1) It was before 28th December UTC, 2) This was almost definitely a donation outside the agreement Nil Einne 14:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure Virgin will find a loophole in the agreement to avoid paying that amount. So whats the use of touting around that they are matching doantions of the day? 'Simple reason - It is not profitable to be charitable!' --Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 16:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What loophole? The matching donation which just happened to be processed a few hours BEFORE Virgin's matching donation went up was clearly not part of the agreement and I don't think any resonable person would think it waS. Nil Einne 17:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Some big checks and such got cashed, then there was some confusing adjustment of which bits were counted in the donation counter. I believe it's been sorted out by the boys in the office. --brion 04:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Soon! Trust me! May be under Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, but soon. He doesn't miss much. :-) --Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 15:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: All donations received today will be matched by Citizendium - The Wikipedia that noone will edit --Dreaded Walrus 07:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the foundation still reserves the right to reject any organisation. However, I would personally hope they don't reject Microsoft or Citizendium. There is no reason to. The only reason IMHO why they should reject a donor is if it would open up legal issues (e.g. the donor is an organisation or person considered associated with terrorism by some government). Tobacco and alcoholic product companies may open up some legal issues as well given tobacco and alcohol adversting restrictions in some countries. But companies like Exxon-Mobil and other controversial but not legally problematic companies should be accepted (although I doubt this would ever arise anyway). Nil Einne 15:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not talk law. Virgin Vodka is a alcoholic drink produced by Virgin Drinks owned by Virgin Group. Virgin Wines is an internet Wine retailer. --Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 16:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However the acknowledgement is unlikely to be considered alcohol advertising in any country I know so it's irrelevant... My point was that certain acknowledgements could be construed as advertisments for alcohol or tobacco which are restricted in a number of countries Nil Einne 17:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding the banner, the developers implemented the "dismiss" link to make sure that registered users would not have to be bothered by the SiteNotice if they didn't want to; although it will occasionally reappear if the SiteNotice is updated, each time the "dismiss" link is there for your convenience. In addition, while I understand your concerns about future notices, I can assure you that the Foundation will never condone of or approve any such "competitive bidding" with the intent to "advertise". We should be thankful that matching donations are being offered, and it (logically) means that the fundraiser will end twice as fast as if there were no matching donations. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Seriously, would you just rather the Foundation reject all corporate donations? Or just be ingrates and take the donation but say nothing about it? ~~ N (t/c) 18:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would prefer the Foundation return to rejecting all corporate donations (specifically ones that require logo placement.)  Matching sponsorship notices must be restricted to the existing donor pages, where no one (not even me) can reasonably object to them...and where they belong.  Spamming the heading of every page is unacceptable.  --Connel MacKenzie -  wikt 23:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it unacceptable? --brion 06:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because it is advertising (as opposed to an acknowledgement.)  But hey, maybe it is just me, and (as you finally noticed on IRC) because I am an "asshole."  The proverbial barn-door is open now for a multitude of advertisers to exploit now.  The flimsy, pissant arguments about maintaining a NPOV go next.  --Connel MacKenzie -  wikt 16:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donation Spikes over $200,000 

message: The Main Page is divided in the ratio 2:1 from left to right instead of 1:1. So, the shape of the page is very bad especially the Did you know section. I viewed it using Firefox 2 and Internet Explorer under Windows XP. Please save the Main Page. --Meno25 15:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still unchanged...is everyone taking a break?--cloviz 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummmm, I'm being blind on the line to fix -- Tawker 17:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two lines after  for the left column (change 55 to 50) then the same for right column (change 45 to 50).  --Connel MacKenzie -  wikt 18:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's because of DYK. I added that yesterday but saw what happened so I removed it. I'm fixing it now. Nishkid64 18:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, fixed now. Nishkid64 18:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, the left column is supposed to be slightly wider than the right column (55:45) as it contains more text. The difference wasn't meant to be quite as big as it was, though; that was a result of too much text in Did you Know, I think – Gurch 20:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there's a DYK about the longest place-name in the United States. Apparently, it was too long for the Main Page, so I had to shorten it. Nishkid64 20:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Did you know... that a lake in the US which is often touted as having the longest name is too big to fit on the front page." ;) --Monotonehell 23:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL!  --PFHLai 12:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MainPage Column Width