Talk:Main Page/Archive 85

message: I wonder how hard it would be to create a program like this, like Mechapixel did. Just have a list of all the unadopted new users, and let the experienced ones, (say, 2 months joined), choose one to mentor. They would answer any questions the user had, one on one, using email, or their respective talk pages or IM screennames. This way, a new user wouldn't have to wait so long to get that burning question answered. Just a thought.
WiiWillieWiki 22:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User already does this on a volunteer basis. —Cuiviénen 23:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not related to MainPage at all. Please be reminded to make use of Wikipedia:Village pump for suggestions like this. Thanks. --PFHLai 10:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adopt a noob 

message: in "On this Day" for Dec 4th, it says "1639 - English astronomer Jeremiah Horrocks made the first observation of a transit of Venus (pictured)."  Taken literally this might be interpreted that this picture is an actual photo taken by Horrocks.  Could that get clarified? Spebudmak 01:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. The confusion stems from the fact that astronomers typically call data which they take "observations", which in many cases are photos. Spebudmak 01:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for pointing this out, Spebudmak. I've typed in "(2004 picture shown)". Hope it's clearer now. Next time, please use WP:ERRORS. Service is usually quicker there. --PFHLai 10:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! Spebudmak 17:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "On This Day" for Dec 4th 

message: I've looked through the wiki code of Main Page, can't find how the link was added. 219.234.136.51 14:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a clever javascript hack to the interwikis. I have no idea how it was performed but here's the discussion as it was created. --Monotonehell 14:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How the "Complete List" link in interwiki area? 

message: I'm very new to Wikipedia, but I find it to be a great source of information.  In my experience, many of the "information" and encyclopeida sites have jumped on the bandwagon of maximizing the use of video and sound clips but provide little real information.  Wikipedia gives you a lot of real information.
However, to me, I find the search function very weak.  I look up many words for which I don't know the correct spelling.  Many times Wiki cannot find the word, so I have to jump to Google, put in my best guess of the spelling, get the correct spelling and then jump back to Wiki.  There should be a better way.
If this was not the correct place to post this, tell me where I should have posted it.
I chose MAINPAGE because it is the entrance into Wiki and a better AI/speller suggester would better help people find
what they want and would be a good thing to do for a better new year.
-So you have my IP address, what'ya gonna do with it?  
69.1.59.67 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, our search function is somewhat inferior to Google's. This is partly because they have billions of dollars and some of the world's best programmers available to perfect their proprietary search algorithm, while on Wikimedia projects, the decision has been made to use only open-source software, so we use the Lucene search module. Lucene is actually a lot better than our search function gives it credit for, though – there are also issues with the way in which MediaWiki, the software that runs Wikipedia, stores text, which prevents it from making the most of Lucene's full capabilities – Gurch 01:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You can use Google to search through Wikipedia only.--cloviz 03:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search function 

message: Help someone!!! I can't find the source of the bad image on the very top of the definition of macedonia page. Someone help!!!! --Geekler A Segway Geek 01:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh. It wasn't the page itself, someone must have edited one of the templates on the page. I didn't find it, but it's fixed now – Gurch 01:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just happened again. It was a template. I reverted it this time. Users responsible are indefinitely blocked – Gurch 01:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Omg...I was eating some chips when I saw a big picture of a penis on that page. I'm still disturbed... Nishkid64 02:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You poor guy.  oTHErONE (Contribs) 03:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was completely disgusting. I clicked that Macedonia link and it gave me a pic of that huge male organ!! Get those vandals!!!ResurgamII 03:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See ANI discussion for details. - BanyanTree 05:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also see Wikipedia_talk:Main_Page_featured_article_protection#Templates and Talk:Macedonia (terminology)#Vandalism while on Main Page. Carcharoth 10:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: See the previous section. They are tampering with templates included on that page. Action has been taken – the vandalism has been reverted, the users responsible have been indefinitely blocked and most of the templates have been protected from editing – Gurch 12:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In future can templates that are used in featured articles be semi-protected before they are put on the main-page? Catchpole 13:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. Discussions to that effect are underway on one of the pages linked in the previous section. It probably wouldn't be necessary for all articles, though – this one seems to be attracting an unusually large amount of vandalism – Gurch 13:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article vandalism 

message: Other discussions on this topic are here, here, here and here. Please add more if you find them. Someone may wish to consolidate all these disparate discussions into one location. Carcharoth 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other discussions on this topic

message: (merged into relevant section by Carcharoth 12:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the previous section. They are tampering with templates included on that page. Action has been taken – the vandalism has been reverted, the users responsible have been indefinitely blocked and most of the templates have been protected from editing – Gurch 12:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In future can templates that are used in featured articles be semi-protected before they are put on the main-page? Catchpole 13:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. Discussions to that effect are underway on one of the pages linked in the previous section. It probably wouldn't be necessary for all articles, though – this one seems to be attracting an unusually large amount of vandalism – Gurch 13:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of Macedonia

message: You should address the persistent (and important to many contributors) question of why you suddenly have an army of editors deleting articles - as opposed to devoting their time to, say, editing article content and improving layout / proofreading. This subject was recently discussed (somewhat lightheartedly) in a New York Times article. So why are y'all doing this? Are you trying to alleviate a bandwidth shortage? Why so much eagerness to excise others' contributions of so many articles? Why give a crap so dang much, and who exactly grants these editors their positions of authority anyway? If there's a logical explanation for why this has become a priority, please explain.
Obviously, I have an opinion - I quarrel with the motivation and the execution of the new Wikipedia deletion surge. If Wikipedia isn't a suitable place to record and explain small bits of our world (such as passing pop culture phenomena, for instance) then where is? I have read the deletion guidelines, the policies on notoriety, but yet I still see, routinely, these guidelines applied arbitrarily, subjects of great magnitude of interest deleted, while other indisputably lessor subjects remain enshrined the hallowed halls of Wikipedialand. And this biased, imperfect deletion policy is towards what end?
And then all the lingo of "salting" to denote banning subjects - is nothing if not mean-spirited and elitist. To deny the public the right to write about any subject -ever-again- reeks of a betrayal of what this thing is supposed to be about - a democratic submission policy about collecting knowledge - in all its pros and cons, messy splendor. That a Wikipedia cabal has been deputized to delete and ban the submission of certain subjects (and that anyone would applaud the act) seems to serve little purpose, and certainly not a democratic one.24.199.84.215 17:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with the Main Page.  If you have a question or proposal, you may be looking for the Village Pump. - BanyanTree 18:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor an anarchy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and subjects which are unencyclopedic are, frankly, not welcome. —Cuiviénen 00:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of, or at least discussion of, Deletion Putsch 

message: I have a suggestion about the placing of the pictures in the 'Did you know...', 'In the news' and 'On this day...' sections on the main page:
Wouldn't it be better if the pictures in those 3 sections appeared just to the right of their respective entries instead of the top right corner?  I sometimes find it hard to immediately match the picture to the corresponding entry in those sections.  Take today(december 9th) for example, the 'in the news' section is showing a picture of Hugo Chavez, but immediately to the left of the picture are entries about Ethiopia and Iraq, which has little or nothing to do with Chavez, but the Chavez entry is 2nd last in that section way at the bottom.
I don't know what it would look like if changes were made, but it's just my suggestion. LG-犬夜叉 00:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was tried on ITN recently.  See Template talk:In the news#Image/news item placement for the discussion and result. - BanyanTree 03:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Placements 

message: Is it possible to nominate the Main Page as a featured article? Simply south 01:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't an article... and I guarantee it wouldn't pass. --Majorly 01:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Main Page is in the article namespace only for historical reasons and it's kept there for simplicity and because there are so many links, internal and external, pointing to it. It's more of a portal than an article, so Portal:Main Page would be a more technically correct title, or perhaps Wikipedia:Main Page since it's arguably a project page also (both these are currently redirects) – Gurch 01:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you could try nominating it as a Featured Portal if you want. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid suggestion 

message: Go to Wikipedia's article and you will see VERY inappropiate pictures!
PLEASE IMMEDIATLEY BAN THE USER Stellaartois AT ONCE! HE'S VERY TRICKY!
EVERY TIME WE TRY TO FIX IT, HE PUTS UP ANOTHER PHOTO! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.122.3.19 (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The user in question has been indefinitely blocked. In future, it would be helpful if you could link to the appropriate articles by typing, for example, Wikipedia to link to the Wikipedia article. Thanks – Gurch 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VANDALISM- CODE RED 

message: Excuse me, but is there a general discussion page talking about what we should on Wikipedia, etc.? I tried talking in here... But i suppose this is just a page that talks about the main page ALONE, so is there any other page that we can talk about what to add on Wikipedia, etc. ??? Dragong4 05:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: General discussion or questions tends to happen on a relevant subpage of the Wikipedia:Village Pump.  If you want to see what sort of articles get removed, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability are worth reading as an introduction. - BanyanTree 05:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Village Pump. --Howard the Duck 05:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  general discussion page? 

message: I can't believe his account isn't tagged yet.  He's already done WP:CVU and probably the Bobby Boulders user page as usual.  What a pest. --CommKing 23:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The account has been indefinitely blocked – Gurch 04:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You know that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is probably the best place to report this right? Nil Einne 19:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AIV is best for obvious vandalism, actually. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I always thought AIV was for users who have been appropriately warned but continue to vandalise and so may need to be blocked where as incidents is for things like sockpuppets and people evading blocks. That's what the respective pages say to me anyway, for example incidents says This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks. In any case, I guess we can agree that either of those pages are better then the mainpage talkpage. Nil Einne 12:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please ban our new friend, Bobby Steelworker the Bobby Boulders sockpuppet 

message: "are sections of the Constitution of India, that prescribe the fundamental"
Is that one really necessary? --Zeality 01:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't seem so to me; go ahead and report it here. Split Infinity 02:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Cuiviénen 03:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comma usage in FA blurb 

message: Any thoughts on putting a link to a featured Wikipedia user on the main page?  Some people have really good userpages with lots of great links.  Dlodge 03:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 03:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed. In other words, user pages (and all other aspects of the "community") exists only as a means to an end. They are not part of the project's end product, and there is no reason why readers of the encyclopedia would want to see them. Wikipedia is not a social networking site – Gurch 05:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A better place for such an item might be Wikipedia:Community Portal. --64.229.220.121 15:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured user 

message: The bit on Kofi Anan and his speech is loaded in my opinion. There is no article regarding his speech, yet someone took the liberty of noting how critical he was of the United States. He didn't talk about anything else? Again, his stance on the US might actually be noteworthy if there was an article to properly back it up - it's editorializing otherwise. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 09:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please join the on-going discussion at Template talk:In the news#Kofi Annan. --64.229.220.121 16:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loaded: In the news 

message: I know im not meant to post this here but i couldnt find the correct place to post it. Anyway there is a racist caption to a picture in the article on the human face (i think the page is just titled 'face'). I dont know how to remove it, but i hope one of you will do it. Also it might be gone by the time i type this but theres a giant nude picture on this talk page at the top!? I found that quite funny, but unacceptable of course.
Harvestein
: A better place for this complaint would be the talkpage of the article in question. --64.229.220.121 15:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Some vandal has made it so that viewing when this talk page, a VERY rude picture\painting appears. Please get rid of it. Simply south 12:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be something to do with Template:Main Page discussion header. It appears in all versions from this one onwards. Can't work out what the problem is though, unfortunately. Carcharoth 12:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the header until the vandalism is cleaned up. Carcharoth 12:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was in Talk:Main Page/archivelist. Fixed now – Gurch 12:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've restored the header template to this page. Carcharoth 12:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I filed a request at WP:RFCU. MER-C 12:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's either the person responsible for #Featured article vandalism above, or a copycat.  Admins, please add images used by the template vandal to MediaWiki:Bad image list, as well as implementing an appropriate level of protection.  Considering the vandal is now forced to use paintings from 1866, it appears that recent additions to the image list are constraining the images he feels will get a rise out of people.  On a sidenote, I think that Gustave Courbet would be delighted that L'Origine du monde (not work-safe) is still considered shocking, a century and a half after he created it. - BanyanTree 14:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, maybe he should be delighted, either way, the vandalism is gone now. Thanks 85.12.80.128 11:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHAT IS GOING ON? 

message: redirects to something eles.--Taida 01:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody had vandalised the page. I've reverted it. The page should be visible now.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 01:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The history of monopoly 

message: Shouldn't they be in the news. Biggest police investigation in the UK for 30 years so I hear. 82.163.157.251 09:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The investigation after the July 2005 London bombings was the biggest police investigation in British history. 129.67.108.253 10:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well murder investigation then. Picky sod. 82.163.157.251 12:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus it's still massive news. 82.163.157.251 12:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst is IS extremely massive in the UK I doubt it is in the US. This is (however much people sya it isnt), a US-dominant site, and the world. Five murders arent enough. Massiv in Britain, not here. Anyway, you dont post about that here, see the messages at the top. 82.3.239.85 17:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember coming here once and seeing a story about some people in California getting food poisoning! Now your telling me that a serial killer, the worst for thirty years in the UK, is not worthy of reporting. If this was America however! 84.65.200.246 22:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suffolk murders

message: I am just a frequent reader who thought I should report what apparently seems to be vandalism on the article about Kori Annan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.185.26.92 (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your note!  Anyone may revert vandalism.  See Help:Reverting for how, so you can handle it next time you spot a problem. - BanyanTree 14:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kofi Annan preview picture 

message: Excuse me?  It is a Holocaust denial conference - sponsored by a regime that openly wants to destroy Israel.  NYU has conferences "examining" the Holocaust, discussing the functionalism vs. intentionalism and how it compares to other genocides.  The Iranian conference is an openly antisemitic attempt to deny one of the greatest crimes in history (and is organized by one someone aiming to be one of the greatest criminals in history).  Saying it "examines" the Holocaust is deliberate obfuscation at worst and belligerent ignorance at best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.162.55.10 (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've found a better way of wording it now :) dab (𒁳) 14:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a news headline. That's why it is on T:ITN. Nishkid64 15:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the best link would be Holocaust denial symposium Dullfig 17:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this isn't a conference of holocaust deniers. The tendency is clear, but since several rabbis attend, we cannot so label the entire conference (unlike individual participants). The correct term is revisionism, in parts historical revisionism (negationism). They also avoid saying up front that they want to review the existence of the Holocaust, please be accurate, they claim to review its particulars, not its very existence. dab (𒁳) 17:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: a somewhat superfluous question. You will note that my change to ITN was from 
'examine' to '"review"', introducing the scare quotes. It is obvious that little else than a full-fledged Holocaust denial session would be hosted by Ahmadinejad. Still, since the conference only just opened, "it" had no time to actullay 'deny' anything, did it. If the closing note of the conference should be "Holocaust is a fairy tale", there will still be ample time to rename the article appropriately. My point is that "a conference" usually does not make any claims, it is the individual participants that do.dab (𒁳) 18:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the link it the quoted phrase goes to historical revisionism. Perhaps we should change "aiming" to "claiming". Koweja 17:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hm, no, they are "claiming to review the holocaust". They may still be denying it, all the while denying they're denying it...  For the sake of brevity (ITN), they are claiming to review the holocaust, since that's the title of the conference, and after all historical revisionism is little more than an euphemism for holocaust denial. dab (𒁳) 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How about just "a conference on the Holocaust"? Redquark 18:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would work. The article explains in more than enough detail that it is a revisionist conference, and anyone who knows anything  about Ahmadinejad can figure that out without reading the article. Koweja 18:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not sure we should be writing content with the assumption that readers already know about the subject.  Just "a conference on the Holocaust", to me, fails to make it clear why this conference is newsworthy.  --Maxamegalon2000 19:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then they can click the bolded link and find out why. Koweja 19:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "a conference on the Holocaust" makes it sound much more legitimate, and thus indeed "evilly distorts" facts than "'review the Holocaust'", in scare quotes, which makes it evident that they are out to, if not deny, at least downplay the extent of the Holocaust. dab (𒁳) 19:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Honestly, I'd prefer to just not mention it at all since I see no real need to acknowledge these people and the conference itself serves to actual purpose except to rile people up and call attention to the attendees. However, that's irrelevant since it is listed. I don't really see the problem with "revewing" since that's what they are doing. Of course they have to authority in the matter and have already decided the outcome, but a BS review is still a review. I just really don't think we need to add our collective analysis of the conference to the blurb. How about "a conference to discuss their views on the Holocaust" or something along those lines. Link "their views" to the article on holocaust denial, and we're good. Just a statement of fact and a link so the reader know what those views are. Koweja 21:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know: "Holocaust Conference, a conference widely expected to deny the holocaust." Dullfig 23:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We must avoid weasel words. Writing the motives purported by the organizers in quotations marks is perfectly neutral and factual.--cloviz 00:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a Farsi name, please leave my transliteration out of this. (Incidentally, it's a great time for funny-sounding foreign names in the news, what with this and Frank Bananarama taking over Fiji.). I disagree that being anti-Zionist is automatically linked with Holocaust denial even if you don't, er, deny it. The ITN should explain briefly what is going on, and leave opinion (where it is sourced and neutral) to the article itself, which it covers adequately in two different sections. It may be the panto season but we're not going to go "It's the evil Vizier! Hiss! Boo!" in what should be a brief, neutral headline. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: historical revisionism is precisely the accurate, correct term for this. You will note that holocaust denial is the prime classic example for historical revisionism, even linked from the lead. The only thing we need to debate if the thing passes the notability threshold for ITN. dab (𒁳) 16:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examining the Holocaust? Excuse Me? 

message: The 'Did You Konw…?' section on the main page needs a rethink. Such a section should include facts that are in some way surprising or thought-provoking, not just obscure. The way it is now, the only thought likely to be provoked is: "Why should I care?" 
For example (using facts that happen to come to mind right now):
"Did you know that Nicephorus was a Byzantine emperor of the 9th Century?" [Boring]
"Did you know that Nicephorus was the only Byzantine emperor killed in battle, apart from the very last emperor?" [Mildly interesting]
"Did you know that the skull of the Byzantine emperor Nicephorus was made into a drinking vessel by the Bulgar khan Krum?" [Much better]
Patrick Neylan 00:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the editors do a fairly good job, since they are restricted to only new entries. However, I agree with you that snippets can be more intriguing -- and there's nothing stopping you from writing snippets yourself. If you want to help out, then go on over to the DYK section and give them a hand. falsedef 01:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem is that the information doesn't just have to be newly added, it has to be from new articles (or newly un-stubbed articles). With over 1.5 million articles already, Wikipedia's new articles are inevitably going to be about very obscure things; most of the inherently interesting topics have articles already – not always particularly good ones, but ones with enough information that expanding them further wouldn't qualify for an entry here. This is the way that the Did you know? section has worked ever since it was set up – years ago, when the number of articles was much, much smaller. It's possible that the way it works needs a rethink; I don't know if there's anywhere else you can bring it up than here to get more attention (it is related to the Main Page, so I guess this is a good place as any) – Gurch 02:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a whole day of Eurovision Song Contest-related items would do the trick, lol. --Howard the Duck 08:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, we've gone a long time without a Eurovision DYK entry. Finally. —Cuiviénen 13:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I just saw one last weekend :p --Howard the Duck 15:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The recent version of DYK that you are referring to is here.  The relevant link in the item in question is the one that is in bold text. - BanyanTree 01:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not in this case. The stub is from Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage and is not in that sentence, but is a small link off the next page. Rjukanbanen, while it may be the rail line that was involved, the Ryukanbanen article has nothing what so ever to do with the subject that the stub hints to. Irrelevant now as the article is no longer up on the main page anyway. Squad'nLeedah 03:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did You Know… is a bit rubbish 

message: It's old news already. John Hyams 17:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this opinion or fact? dposse 18:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As it says at the top of this page, ""In the news" items are listed as they are added." Equally, ITN items are removed when they drop off the bottom of the list after enough new recently-updated articles have been added above them. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? I thought the conference was still going on? Nishkid64 00:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh-huh, I think is still going on (I caught up on The Daily Show, haha). Kerowren 01:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that it has ended. . If anyone can find a better source.... dposse 01:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to put the Iranian conference story aside 

message: Did you know "...that Texas politician Maury Maverick, Jr. killed a bill to sentence convicted communists to death by adding a poison pill amendment to sentence suspected communists to life imprisonment?" Poor choice of words (killed a bill) when talking about actual death also. Also should say USA Texas politician. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.144.251.120 (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is meant to be ironic and the whole irony is in the choice of words. -- Kerowren 01:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone please clean this up 

message: === Vandalism ===
Can someone please remove the bisected penis from the front page?  Thanks. - MSTCrow 06:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm seeing it too, the question is... how did it get there? No one added it and it is shown on the history page too. Lcarsdata 06:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: lol. gross. wtf happened to that thing?--Deglr6328 06:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, that is monumental vandalism. --Adamrush 06:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AHHHHHH! MY EYES!!! The Wookieepedian 06:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironically, a penis is stretching the page, not itself. --Ihmhi 06:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, what gives? That's disturbing. Why is it not in the history? Valley2city 06:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That hadda hurt! -- Kendrick7talk 06:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wrong - still there. G Rose 06:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it off? Even more disgusting! -- Kendrick7talk 06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not on my screen anymore...? Arynknight 06:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Liar -- it just got better! -- Kendrick7talk 06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was something to do with selected anniversaries. Lcarsdata 06:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Haha, yeah, I'm having a hard time getting my all-important comments in.  By the way, does anyone see it back again?  I do. G Rose 06:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is clearly an exploit, isn't it? Is editing of the main page even suppose to be possible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.58.245.168 (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's there again, can we check who added that (I can't)? --Cyktsui 06:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They have edited a transcluded template that is nested very far down that someone didn't protect. Lcarsdata 06:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you fixed that, thank you ROY YOЯ 06:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The image got removed, but there is still a link to the photo (to upload there) can someone please remove it? --Cyktsui 06:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I knew how!  I think an admin has to do it.Rgrizza 06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Does anyone know who the vandal is/was? (And why do I get the feeling it is/was an IP?) --JB Adder | Talk 06:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://img.4chan.org/ They probably have something to do with it. Sorry /b/, WhereAmI like Wikipedia better.  No I had nothing to do with it, wikipedia.--WhereAmI 06:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I was looking at all the various templates that are on the page to see if anyone added it to them, but I couldn't see it. I'm really wondering how that happened. That was utterly weird. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not 100% sure, but I (pointed by somebody else above) think what happened was Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 15 missed getting protected before showing up on the main page. Like I said, not sure, though.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what happened. It was on that page. User:Earthofsprit kept adding various images to the page with deceptive edit summaries. They're indef blocked now (obviously). Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 07:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No wonder we didn't catch that as the edit summary was misleading! It's good that it has been identified and hopefully we can avoid that in the future. --Cyktsui 07:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: See above post by me. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 07:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You might need to convert it into an image; not all of us can take webarchives. --JB Adder | Talk 11:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above already, 4chan had something to do with.  the link you provided will never work, as the articles are delete on /b/ too often from posting.  Yes, someone from /b/ claimed credit, the link will never work, and I already told you /b/ did it.  However, saying 4chan and /b/ did it is like suing wikipedia because the definition of yourself was biased, users post things there, 4chan had nothing to do with it, just one of the users.--WhereAmI 18:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on the image on the Main Page 

message: Can someone please remove the bisected penis from the front page?  Thanks. - MSTCrow 06:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm seeing it too, the question is... how did it get there? No one added it and it is shown on the history page too. Lcarsdata 06:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: lol. gross. wtf happened to that thing?--Deglr6328 06:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, that is monumental vandalism. --Adamrush 06:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AHHHHHH! MY EYES!!! The Wookieepedian 06:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironically, a penis is stretching the page, not itself. --Ihmhi 06:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, what gives? That's disturbing. Why is it not in the history? Valley2city 06:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That hadda hurt! -- Kendrick7talk 06:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wrong - still there. G Rose 06:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it off? Even more disgusting! -- Kendrick7talk 06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not on my screen anymore...? Arynknight 06:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Liar -- it just got better! -- Kendrick7talk 06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was something to do with selected anniversaries. Lcarsdata 06:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Haha, yeah, I'm having a hard time getting my all-important comments in.  By the way, does anyone see it back again?  I do. G Rose 06:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is clearly an exploit, isn't it? Is editing of the main page even suppose to be possible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.58.245.168 (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's there again, can we check who added that (I can't)? --Cyktsui 06:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They have edited a transcluded template that is nested very far down that someone didn't protect. Lcarsdata 06:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you fixed that, thank you ROY YOЯ 06:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I'm rather inexperienced and not quite sure how to resolve this issue, that is, a "ModBlog" photo covering the entire right corner of the main page. If someone could resolve this problem that would be great!
they just deleted the image, the link is still there. Thanks anyway, whoever. ROY YOЯ 06:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image got removed, but there is still a link to the photo (to upload there) can someone please remove it? --Cyktsui 06:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I knew how!  I think an admin has to do it.Rgrizza 06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Page Photo 

message: what the hell just happened 71.58.245.168 06:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page vandailized 

message: Could an admin remove the redlink to a image at the top, just below the donations line? I know this is small, but still in a visible place. Thanks. 24.20.69.240 06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlinked image 

message: Can this vandal be blocked?  OneCyclone 06:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know who the vandal is/was? (And why do I get the feeling it is/was an IP?) --JB Adder | Talk 06:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://img.4chan.org/ They probably have something to do with it. Sorry /b/, WhereAmI like Wikipedia better.  No I had nothing to do with it, wikipedia.--WhereAmI 06:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It's back

message: I saw a very disgusting picture showing a penis in the main page. Luckily, I was not browsing Wiki in  public. It was fixed right before I start typing these words. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.103.220.136 (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone added a disgusting picture in the main page 

message: There appears to be a picture of what I think is a deformed bleeding penis on the main page and I was wondering if an Admin could remove it. Thanks.--Flyingcheese 06:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Page 

message: Could the admininstrators explain how did the photo appear in a protected page and who did it? As I can't seem to find any history on that.  If it's a loophole on Wikipedia, is there any solution for it? --Cyktsui 06:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking at all the various templates that are on the page to see if anyone added it to them, but I couldn't see it. I'm really wondering how that happened. That was utterly weird. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not 100% sure, but I (pointed by somebody else above) think what happened was Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 15 missed getting protected before showing up on the main page. Like I said, not sure, though.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what happened. It was on that page. User:Earthofsprit kept adding various images to the page with deceptive edit summaries. They're indef blocked now (obviously). Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 07:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No wonder we didn't catch that as the edit summary was misleading! It's good that it has been identified and hopefully we can avoid that in the future. --Cyktsui 07:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: See above post by me. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 07:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on how the photo got to the main page.... 

message: In the popular /b/ forum, someone has taken credit. Since most /b/ threads have a life expectancy of 20 minutes, I have archived the post. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might need to convert it into an image; not all of us can take webarchives. --JB Adder | Talk 11:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above already, 4chan had something to do with.  the link you provided will never work, as the articles are delete on /b/ too often from posting.  Yes, someone from /b/ claimed credit, the link will never work, and I already told you /b/ did it.  However, saying 4chan and /b/ did it is like suing wikipedia because the definition of yourself was biased, users post things there, 4chan had nothing to do with it, just one of the users.--WhereAmI 18:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[4chan]] takes credit

message: I, for one, am not entirely thrilled with the inclusion of the investigation into a serial killer that killed five prostitutes in Ipswich, England.  Please tell me if even more heinous incidents in the past, like the Prospect Avenue murders of 2004 in Kansas City (as many as 12 women linked to one murderer; Terrance Gillard is awaiting special trial on those murder charges), BTK, or anything comparable worldwide have been included on the front page before.  --KHill-LTown 01:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Entries are considered on their own merits, not on precedents, and "heinousness" of an event is up to your POV. If you really do want to go into statistics, the number of fatalities so far in this case matches that of the Amish School Shooting mentioned in ITN a while back. Albeit that was a single event, but then you could compare this serial killer case with Jack the Ripper – again, five fatalities. Note that I'm not saying that five killings is the bar for inclusion. I'm just saying that using precedents to back up or discredit an entry is a bad idea. In this case, the murders are getting worldwide news coverage and we have an updated article. Technically the requirements for inclusion are met. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 01:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As an addendum, I do sometimes wonder why people get so hung up about notability of ITN items. No one protests when DYK gets entries about obscure twelfth-century Romanian warlords (though Eurovision entries do seem to get some people worked up). In my opinion, if an article is current, and notable enough to avoid AFD, it can be considered for ITN. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems ITN can't win. Further above is someone complaining of its exclusion (non-incusion?) and here is someone complaining of its inclusion. On its merits, it's been featured on UK, Australian and US TV network news. Just because something of greater "heinousness" has missed out in the past has no bering on a current consideration. ITN inclusions rely on editor submissions. If something is never suggested; no matter how newsworthy, encyclopedic and noteworthy; I'm the prince of Bel-Air.
That's it! One more complaint and no one shall have ITN! ;) jokes ;) --Monotonehell 03:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, lets get rid of it.--Greasysteve13 06:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Those things you meantioned are heaps more important.--Greasysteve13 11:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody is being questioned over the murders. I think this should be added. .    Codu    talk    contribs    email   12:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think there was a shooting in Canada recently where the shooter had a website and photos were taken from it and stuff (we have an article on it). --WikiSlasher 10:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ipswich serial killer deserves mention? 

message: Is it possible to make major announcements about Wikibooks on the main Wikipedia page? Robinhw 11:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really; we have nine sister projects, not even including other-language Wikipedias, Wikibooks is only one of them. The English Wikipedia may be the biggest Wikimedia project, but it's still a separate project, and isn't really the place to promote other ones. Anyway, is that really a major annoucement? Looks more like an advert to me. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikibooks is Wikipedia's closest relative in terms of purpose. It aims to give students anywhere in the world free access to otherwise expensive factual texts. My guess is that Wikibooks will go through the same development cycle as Wikipedia but over a period of 3-5 times as long because books are time consuming.  This is why some publicity to draw in Wikipedia contributors would be useful. In 2 years Wikipedia went from a big encyclopaedia to the biggest encyclopaedia, the growth was explosive. Having 3-5 times the lead time, in 6-10 years Wikibooks will probably be THE source for on-line textbooks.  But a bit more publicity could cut this lead time in half. So, yes, I am asking for an advert! Robinhw 10:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds like we need a place for sister project of the week. (Personally, I'd like wiktionary to get more mention.) —Pengo  talk · contribs 02:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Announcements about Wikibooks

message: It would be great if there was a very clear way for folks to post comments on featured articles if they want to. I mean a redirect from "discuss this article" to this page whenever a page is featured (or something like that). I inadvertently went to the article's talk page for a featured article to post a comment, and think that was incorrect. I spent something like 20 minutes looking for the right link to post, because I knew it had to be there somewhere. Please consider it. Thank you.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • &site=en.wikipedia.org count • [/wiki/Special:Log?user= logs] • email) 18:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's talk page is always the proper location to discuss the article, even if it is on the Main Page (as a Featured Article or anything else). Those discussing it here are doing so in the wrong place, not you. —Cuiviénen 18:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Thanks for the information.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • &site=en.wikipedia.org count • [/wiki/Special:Log?user= logs] • email) 18:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From a recent new user

message: I didn't know where else to go for help because most of my user page was deleted. Can you please restore it to it's original form? Can you also trace the IP that vandalized it. Please and thank you! Season Greetings!--kitsumiti 19:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I reverted back to your last edit. If you go to 'history' on your user page you can see who did it.--Bryson 19:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the best we can do now is just warn him, and that's what Bryson109 did. Nishkid64 22:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandals do this for attention, so "giving them heck" is the worst thing you can do. Revert, warn, ignore. That's how you deal with them. Koweja 23:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say just revert and ignore. Warning just eggs them on. Eventually they get bored with being destructive. --Monotonehell 10:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree. Aran|heru|nar 04:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help! Vandalized User Page! 

message: Time this took up a bit less space.  The bit about donations could be merged with the bit below.81.168.46.189 10:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Click dismiss (after you've donated! :) ) you never need gaze upon it again. --Monotonehell 10:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't donate but it disappeared. How can I bring it back ? Frigo 12:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It will come back if you log out --Melburnian 12:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you don't want to see the donations message, just [ create an account]. This not only hides the message but allows you to customize the interface however you want – Gurch 16:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: See the button labelled "dismiss" on the right-hand side? Click it. Then [ create an account]. That way you don't see the standard non-fundraiser message either – Gloy 16:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a dismiss button. 147.197.251.136 18:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only logged in users see the dismiss button. Perhaps the template should be fixed so it can be dismissed for IP addresses as well? Koweja 18:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see the dismiss button either. Strange... FellowWikipedian 01:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top Bar

message: Please remove the "Donate via PayPal" button on every page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.130.164.38 (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the button labelled "dismiss" on the right-hand side? Click it. Then [ create an account]. That way you don't see the standard non-fundraiser message either – Gloy 16:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a dismiss button. 147.197.251.136 18:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only logged in users see the dismiss button. Perhaps the template should be fixed so it can be dismissed for IP addresses as well? Koweja 18:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see the dismiss button either. Strange... FellowWikipedian 01:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donations 

message: Wangchuck? That's really the name of the Bhutanese royal family? Oh my God ...
Thank God this didn't happen on a weekday. The vandalism would have been off the scale until we protected the article. Daniel Case 19:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wangchuck? 

message: The summary says that the English Bill of Rights 1689 asserts positive rights, but the rights listed in the article are all negative ("freedom from") or at least arguably so ("freedom to").  —Tamfang 20:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Bill of Rights 1689 

message: I think that it's kind of strange that the "featured articles" text on the main page header is in title caps. I.e. "1198 of which are Featured Articles" instead of "1198 of which are featured articles". Isn't it so that this should just be the latter, i.e. "featured articles", instead of with a capital for every word? function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 16:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that bit's just been added and still needs refining. I've already edited it once to add a missing comma; someone else has reworded it. I've just changed "Featured Articles" to lowercase as you suggest; it'll probably be changed again soon, so I suggest you check back tomorrow and see if it's still to your liking – Gurch 16:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the featured article count from the header.  Please revert me if its inclusion was discussed somewhere and reflects consensus, but this statistic already was added to the top of the main page (in the Today's featured article section, where it looks much better and makes far more sense to newbies).  —David Levy 17:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Well, that's the end of that, I guess – Gurch 23:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually I kind of miss it. dpod 18:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "x of which are Featured Articles" 

message: What happened to the Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi article?--Azer Red Si? 17:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I just noticed that too. → JARED (t)  17:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When sensitive information (such as a Wikipedia user's personal contact information) is put into an article as vandalism, the entire article is deleted and then every edit but the offending edit is restored. This leads to FAs (most commonly) being deleted for short periods of time, usually less than a minute. It doesn't happen too often. —Cuiviénen 19:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merci. → JARED (t)  19:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zarqawi article deleted? 

message: Who changes the main page articles?
Comperr 05:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just one person, it's a whole process. Each section is handled by a different project. See the help boxes at the top of this page for the individual sections. --Monotonehell 06:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  84.64.226.4 18:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who changes it? 

message: Just in case anyone noticed... (I didn't!) the sidebar has changed. I've started a little thread at the talk page of the redesign page. Carcharoth 10:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sidebar changed 

message: There should be a way to nominate pictures for the main page without the pics having to be featured first. Although the title is "featured pictures," many stunning and amazing pics are not featured. There should be some sort of a voting process. Seldon1 15:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is. --Maxamegalon2000 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Pictures 

message: Great job! Now the "search box" is lower on the screen, so I am forced to scroll down to get to it. I am very happy that this change took place. I wish you the best of luck with future changes! Maybe next time the box could change positions or disappear when the mouse pointer hovers above it. The great thing is that, if changes keep making Wikipedia worse, all articles are soon going to end up like what is written above about Dr. R. Vaithilingam (I see that the Vaithilingam part was removed; it was a rambling about some professor in India, written in poor English). 89.120.193.125 21:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you running on 640x480 resolution or something? —Centrx→talk • 21:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The box could feasibly disappear at 800x600 if you were using Internet Explorer and had toolbars and other dodgy junk cluttering the thing up. If that's the case here, then get rid of it rather than moaning at Wikipedia – Gurch 23:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I use Firefox with the navigation bar only, at an 800x600 resolution. With the scroll bar up, I only see half of the search bar. I can write but I must scroll down to see the buttons, if I need to.--cloviz 23:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so it does, if you use the default skin. Yes, that is a bit of a problem. Perhaps "interaction" should be below "search"? – Gurch 23:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps I can just roll the wheel and exercise my middle finger; I don't think it's fatal. I just found out that I don't see the search box at all when there's that bar for having several pages in a single window (don't know how to say in English). No problem, more strenght for my finger.--cloviz 23:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or repetitive strain injury of the knuckle (I'm serious). Carcharoth 17:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point. On Windows and Firefox 2, it's Alt + Shift + F (Alt + F just opens the File menu) – Gurch 11:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great job on the sidebar 

message: Wow, that was certainly interesting.  It's not everyday you see a vandal actually admit he just vandalized something.  In regards to this.  Strange.  DoomsDay349 23:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if you blank a page that appears automatically. I just guess because I see it often.--cloviz 23:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Shit, I was about to say that. :( 58.178.52.149 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Automatic edit summaries, implemented for blanking and page creation as reported in the 2006-11-20 Signpost. - BanyanTree 00:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A very, very useful feature, I might add. Koweja 00:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Then they'd just stop doing a simple blank and start inserting pictures of taboo body parts. The more clever you get the more clever they get. It becomes a war of escalation. --Monotonehell 09:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that there are a few (though not many) legitimate uses for page blanking, such as non-admin users clearing their own talk pages or subpages. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An honest vandalism 

message: When I am not logged in, and and just looking around, the font got smaller between now and , say 3 hours ago. What is going on? --Lionheart Omega 03:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I just realised this. It is really small. Even when I hold down control and use the mouse wheel, it is either small or REALLY REALLY HUGE! Can someone please rectify this? It looks awful. Short stop 03:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I thought I had accidentally toggled some annoying zoom feature of my browser, but it seems the fonts have gotten unreadably small. --71.228.126.149 03:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - I'm having the same problem! --Anthony5429 03:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait; it seems to be fixed now. Anyone know what happened? --Anthony5429 03:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently . —Centrx→talk • 03:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Font 

message: "that the world's longest lasting lightbulb is 105 years old and has been burning continuously since 1976?"
Does anyone else have a problem with the math here? As far as I am reading this, theres a light bulb thats been lasting for 105 years and its been going since 1976? Or is it very old and 105 years old but has only been used since 1976? Because this is not clear to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.99.207 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article it explains, they had to stop it for 10 minutes to move it. The Guy From Ipanema 23:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I saw some problems with that. It makes sense though since it links to Centennial light or something like that. Nishkid64 02:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For those coming along who may be confused, as I was, what this is referring to, see Centennial Light.  Dismas|(talk) 03:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math people! 

message: I propose a new major wikiproject Wikilanguage or Wiki Linguistics which specializes in the teaching of all languages. I have looked over the internet and have found some sites which do have several of the major languages giving knowledge of learning them but this wuould be huge. This would provide all the information for learning languages such as most of the 250 languages that already have wikipedias. Learning a language is a major infomration source but wikipedia does not have this. Anybody interested in starting this ? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not really the place to propose such a thing. Maybe try somewhere in . --Monotonehell 11:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You've described Wikiversity.  See their v:Topic:Foreign Language Learning. - BanyanTree 12:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dah - do I feel silly now? lol --Monotonehell 20:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A new wikilanguage sister project