Talk:Main Page/Archive 81

message: It's a little embarrassing that an article that has a neutrality disputed tag and a grand total of two citations is today's featured article.  --Descendall 03:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already on WP:FAR. Apparently there are citations in the article source, which passed muster in 2005. --Dhartung | Talk 10:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nepal

message: The only thing that this Wikipedia is good for is spreading nationalist propaganda... but that makes no difference to you admins, does it? It's obvious how you are dedicated to making this wikipedia a better place  guitardemon666  click me  guitardemon666 
: That's not true. Spreading nationalist propaganda is not what Wikipedia is for. And for general complaints, please go to the Village Pump. -- 64.229.221.217 10:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what propaganda is Wikipedia supposed to be spreading? Do you have any evidence, or are you just very bored? dposse 14:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He/she is obviously very bored, look at that grotesque signature. As an admin, who works on frog articles, I am interested to know how I am spreading nationalist propaganda. --liquidGhoul 14:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be better to complain about your concerns regarding Macedonian content on those pages that you take issue with. It's a very large generalisation to stretch your experience on one topic to the WHOLE of Wikipedia. Instead of EXPLODING randomly, have you considered rational, reasoned debate backed with academic research? You may find you get further contributing to Wikipedia rather than screaming at everyone. --Monotonehell 16:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sad but true 

message: Several ITN candidates have been left unattended at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Admin attention is requested. Thanks. --64.229.221.217 10:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please update ITN (28 September 2006)

message: was subsequently killed in action two years later?
Oh God, that's awful. Take one of those out. Please. Daniel Case 02:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we have better writing in DYK squibs? 

message: Why is there no Arabic Wikipedia? ♥I live in the Middle East, and although I am an English speaker, I find it odd that so much of the world is not represented in this wonderful site. User:Waldo J. Cartridge
:Actually, there is. It's at http://ar.wikipedia.org. Raven4x4x 09:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabic

message: OMG, the two top sections of the Main Page have tropical cyclones at the top of them? Where are the earthquakes and tornadoes? It's rampant pro-hurricane bias, I'm telling you! Titoxd(?!?) 23:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it about 5 minutes ;) Raul654 23:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rampant pro-hurricane bias 

message: One of the things I like the most in the Main Page is the Featured Picture, and unhappily I almost always miss it since it's two pages down @ 1024x768. While all the content is very important, I feel a lot of it is "lost" because it isn't in the right place.
I wish the Main Page was a bit different from the rest of Wikipedia... well it's already different since no normal user can edit it. It's the face and first impression of Wikipedia.
As a suggestion, could the In the news, Did you know... and On this day sections be transformed in some sort of news banners, showing one item at the time? Moving text does catch the attention of the user more than static ones.
I also thing the side-bar takes too much area from the content of the page, but I have no ideas how to change it.
In sum, this is one of the main sources of knowledge of the humanity, and I do feel it needs all the presentation it takes to make it more pleasing to read, user friendly, and still contain all content you'd like to pass to everyone else.
I feel a bit sad about using such as buzzword, but the Main Page does need a more Web 2.0-ish feature rich look, of course in a healthy way that our high-profiled webdesigners can surely do. --ren 05:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically any redesign for the main page will have to go through a lengthy community discussion such as here and here. However, you do have the option instead to look at one of the pages listed on Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives. If you just want to look at the feature picture of the day, you can always put  on your user page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I would certainly oppose any moving text. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You can always "roll your own" main page under your user page and bookmark it. Put the sections in an order that makes sense to you, omit what you care less about, and as they say, viola. --Dhartung | Talk 14:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Main Page too long? 

message: Come on. Where's the original research, unreferenced statemets, and goatse images? You need to fairly represent vandals, this is a horrible pro-contributor bias! 80.41.202.89 10:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know! How can wikipedia be so biased?  dposse 16:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a travesty. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. dposse 16:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: <sarcasm> OMG! Yes I totally agree! </sarcasm> YSHOULDUKNOW123 21:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Has anyone read Wikipedia:Community Portal lately? The pro-contributor bias is beyond horrible there. -- 64.229.229.244 13:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its just a disgrace. --Gold Blade53 05:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horrible pro-contributor bias 

message: Based on a recent merge of Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers, the links in the header ("Welcome" and "anyone can edit") both lead to the same place. I'd suggest "Welcome" gets unlinked, or at least linked directly to the Introduction instead of via a redirect. --Quiddity 19:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers link.  —David Levy 19:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome link 

message: On my view of the talk page, some of the sub-paragraphs (the ones that have the left margian moved to the right) are being done so much, the text is only 20 characters long, and also shoved to the extreme right of my screen, making them very hard to read, and also making the page very [[[LOOOOONNGGG|long]]. Should there be a limit on this?Biteebacca 20:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually someone anounces an 'indent reset' and the discussion moves back to the left, which topic(s) are extreme for you? I'll flick them back a bit. --Monotonehell 20:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super-Sub Paragraps 

message: "In the news" The recent addition about Israel and Lebanon misspells the word Israel as Isreal, and actually redirects to the Isreal disambiguation page. Someone mat want to correct it.  LordNaughty 21:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ever heard of WP:ERRORS?  Try that next time. --64.229.221.9 10:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had not, but I will now use it if a similar situation arises. LordNaughty 14:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please be civil. Jeltz talk 14:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh? Would smileys help?  If whatever I typed is somehow perceived as uncivil, I apologise. -- 64.229.229.244 14:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling error. 

message: Ok, I have read the debate at both Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipe-tan and Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day#Wikipe-tan as POTD?, but I am still not sure if Wikipe-tan is appropriate on the main page due to its potential self-reference. Keep in mind that this is a consequence of the only requirement on how a picture of the day is selected: being the list of FPs in the order they get promoted. Thoughts? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:RULE PARANOIA.  Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Spinach crisis '06! • WP:NYCS} 00:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...well, it's a valid concern. I don't think this particular situation raises too many ethical concerns though, but this is simply an uninformed opinion. --HappyCamper 00:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is more like I am still a little emotionally uncomfortable about it. That's all. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is meant to illustrate moe anthropomorphization, not Wikipedia itself. —Cuiviénen 01:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Try actually reading WP:ASR. It's not simply "avoid self-references". If you are still confused, read the discussion at . --BRIAN0918 03:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly oppose using this as a front page image. Phil Sandifer 01:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Spinach crisis '06! • WP:NYCS} 02:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly oppose people adding their unqualified opinion. This is Wikipedia, please explain your reasons, otherwise  your opinion counts for nothing towards consensus. --Monotonehell 13:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm in two minds.  I don't think it is the best look for Wikipedia to focus on itself, but then again, it is a good illustration of the personalisation of organisations are done, with an organisation that readers obviously do know about.  However, having Wikipedia on the front page I would completely object to. --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 06:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipe-tan as today's featured picture 

message: It says towards the begining "plane crash survivors on a mysterious, seemingly deserted island, somewhere in the South Pacific." I think it should go mysterious, seemingly deserted, island, somewhere... since seemingly deserted is the appositive phrase renaming the mysterious island. schyler 01:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not correct English. "Seemingly deserted" is not an appositive phrase. Andrew Levine 16:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article 

message: Just a suggestion, and I will probably be yelled out for suggesting this, but...  Instead of having just the Amish school shooting, how about having "a number of school shootings occur through the United States of America" and then have links to each of them?  There have been arguments before about whether an individual shooting is notable, so how about this proposal?  I don't think each individual shooting is notable, but collectively they could be. --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 02:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are individual cases and not related. But look at that Mark Foley thing; if you complain about that I'm with you!--cloviz 11:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As in #Mark Foley scandal. -- 199.71.174.100 13:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's now Talk:Main_Page/Archive_80#Mark_Foley_scandal. --64.229.230.31 13:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shooting's ITN 

message: I know this probably belongs on Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries, but no one ever looks at that page. So...
Someone mentioned on WP:ERRORS the fact that Yom Kippur was selected as an anniversary for October 1 (beginning at sundown), but not on October 2 even though the bulk of the holiday was on October 2. In some ways, I agree with his sentiment. I suggest that from now on holidays that run from sunset-to-sunset (or something close to that), like Yom Kippur and Eid ul-Fitr, be mentioned on the primary day (e.g. Yom Kippur (Judaism, concludes at nightfall) for October 2 and Eid ul-Fitr (Islam, concludes at sunset) for October 24). Any thoughts? -- tariqabjotu 03:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One advantage to a sundown-to-sundown accounting is that observant people can then use Wikipedia as a reminder. Otherwise it's 'darn', I forgot that xxx is yyy. So if the observance is timely, it's more useful to the observant. And if the bulk of the day is on yyy+1, then Selected Anniversaries might conclude the observance with an annotation 'until yyy+1, sundown'.  --Ancheta Wis 03:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm confused now. Is the "two day listing" because that's how a sundown-sundown holiday works, or is it because sundown-sundown will cover two days as the Earth rotates, with people one side of the International Date Line starting the holiday two days before people the other side end the same holiday? Carcharoth 15:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sundown-to-sundown is how the holidays work. For this past Yom Kippur, for example, the holiday began at sunset on October 1 and ran until nightfall on October 2 in the observer's given location. -- tariqabjotu 03:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunset-to-Sunset Holidays 

message: I have no idea where to put this, but what are Wikipedia's vandals names? I know that there are some. We need help that has to do with vandals.
PS: I would love thair Email, if possible.
:There are lots of vandals and most are anonymous. This is a list of banned users. Note that this is not the right place for this kind of questions (this discussion page belongs to the Main Page only); next time check here which is the appropriate place to post your questions.--cloviz 01:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever you are thinking, it will not help anyone. Stop thinking it. --Monotonehell 01:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Most vandals no longer have pages on Wikipedia about them due to WP:DENY. 151.188.16.20 12:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its to end an evil regime of moderators on another wiki. --74.135.10.74 04:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help Wanted

message: Today's blurb says Cape Otway is in the Southern Ocean.  It's not; it's on the Bass Strait (between the mainland and Tasmania).
How does one get that fixed?
: Try WP:ERRORS. --64.229.231.60 15:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did you know...Cape Otway 

message: Perhaps any article featured or linked on the main page shuold have a protect on it until it is taken down? If an article is featured it'll be ok for 24 hours without edits... i'm at school and clicked on today's featured article and i'm lucky i didn't get caught looking at "porn" and suspended! It didn't used to be so rediculous way back when... Kuronue 15:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pls see User:Raul654/protection. --64.229.231.60 15:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: An idea on the topic.  Why not prevent images from being added or removed from Featured articles during their time on the main page?  This would prevent people from adding inappropriate images (such as pornography, shock images, etc) to featured articles. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 16:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe we should have a "featured version" of the featured article protected and linked from the Main Page, added with a link to edit the "current version" of the article. Almost like uploading an image from WCommons and protecting that copy in English Wikipedia. -- 64.229.231.60 16:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: From your info it looks like your in the US. If so, I suggest you change school. I don't know how things work in the US but IMHO in any rich and highly developed country, if you get suspended for looking at a featured wikipedia article which happens to have vandalism and so contains something approaching porngraphy you need to change school. Or perhaps change country... Nil Einne 04:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: looking at pornography is against the terms of service for our school internet access; I could probably explain my way out of any serious retribution but I'd rather not have the headache. Though changing countries is really, really tempting... mostly I don't trust my teachers to have a level head about giant images of penises on my screen during instructional time when I'm supposedly doing research on a school computer using their internet access. Kuronue 06:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a good idea although I'm still of the opinion it should not be an issue at any school in a developed country, or at least at a secondary school. I mean I'm not surprised that looking at pornography is against the rules of most schools but if the school is too stupid to understand it not the users fault when they visit an innocous wikipedian page and come across a penis that a vandal has inserted then I would seriously question the quality of education you can obtain from that school. Nil Einne 10:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Shouldn't the title of this section be "On this day"? The '...' makes perfect sense for they DYN section but not for the On this day section. Vicarious 02:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It's a complete title and it's not like we're introducing anything particularly dramatic or surprising most of the time. Jellypuzzle | Talk 08:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On this day... 

message: :Did you know...that Halltorps Manor (pictured) on Öland island, has been the site of
There shouldn't be a comma, or there should be a pair setting of "on Öland island". 59.112.55.33 13:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the future, this should be reporetd at WP:ERRORS. It will be more quickly noticed there. —Cuiviénen 21:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor grammar error 

message: I wonder if a link to Wikipedia:Sandbox somewhere on this talkpage would be useful to the newbies. -- PFHLai 18:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Wikipedia:Tutorial. The sandbox is one click down on the 3rd tab (Formatting) on this page. And the Tutorial is protected, so the sandbox is the place to learn. --Ancheta Wis 00:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandbox ? 

message: Not showing up correctly, but the link is correct. - Che Nuevara 05:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  flag of lesotho 

message: The intro to the featured articles gives no idea when the person lived. Hoylake 12:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When?

message: I would like to suggest that the number of articles with Wikipedia:Persondata is included in the statistics page . Camptown 19:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Wikipedia talk:Statistics. -- 64.229.230.179 16:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Persondata

message: How do I request an article for clean-up?
#Read Wikipedia:Questions.
#Decide where to ask your question. You probably mean to ask at  Wikipedia:help desk.
#Repeat your edit at the appropriate page, not the main page.--21:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try adding the tag  to the "unclean" article. See Wikipedia:Cleanup process for more info. -- 64.229.230.179 16:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Clean-up

message: I noticed most criticism on Wikipedia gets wiped out more often than not, resulting in articles that almost always present the topic in positive light. Almost everything has criticism - and its entirely unfair to have literally any article without criticism, barring things that are not debatable (such as mathematical formulas). Not only that, but I noticed that we have tons of thorough articles on TV shows, movies, video games, and such, and other things - such as anything rooted in the sciences and maths are sometimes sparse. So whats going on? --162.83.137.157 23:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quality of articles on Wikipedia is limited by the knowledge and effort of our contributors. Articles on advanced mathematical concepts tend to be of lower quality because we have very few contributors who can improve those articles, but many or even most Wikipedians understand and can improve articles on pop culture. —Cuiviénen 23:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia tries to be neutral. If you see warranted criticism missing in an article, try discussing on the talk page of the article in question and put in the criticism. Don't forget to cite your sources. -- 64.229.230.179 16:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you give us an example of where criticsm is wiped? This is a very serious matter. Firstly, it is very rare for things to be wiped. Most content will remain in our datastore and can be viewed through the history function unless there is a good reason for it to be permanently deleted. Secondly, it is violation of policy to remove people's comments, including criciticsm without good reason. We have various policies and guidelines for example on Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks which we expect editors to maintain. If you excessively breach these policies and guidelines, your comments may very well be removed (although this is actually fairly rare). Also, we may remove libelous comments so please make sure you have evidence for any claims especially about a person before you make them. I assume your are talking about criticisms of an article BTW. If you wish to share your opinions of a person, organisation, theory or whatever it is easily possible your comments will be removed as wikipedia is not a soapbox or a discussion board. However assuming your are talking about real criticism of an article, the only other reason I can think of it is removed is likely because it is in the wrong place. Most criticism should be in an article's talk page. This page for example, is not the place for criticism of wikipedia in general (although we often don't remove it anyway) nor of specific articles. Assuming you have seen criticism of an article appropriately raised which has been deleted, please either msg me on my talk page or discuss it here. As I have stated, this is a very serious issue and I would like to look in to it ASAP. BTW remember to sign your posts and please don't use all caps. Nil Einne 04:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overwhelming bias throughout Wikipedia

message: :Moved to the usertalkpage of the Wikipedian who asked for help. --16:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with my userpage... 

message: Is this supposed to be a compendium of the entirety of the world's knowledge, or a potted history of the Eurovision Song Contest with a few other articles tacked on? The situation with ESC items on the main page is reaching embarassing levels. Badgerpatrol 02:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, ESC items can't ESCape being part of the compendium of the entirety of the world's knowledge. The situation at DYK is probably best handled by "recruiting" more new articles about other topics to feature there.  -- PFHLai 13:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Totally agree with BadgerPatrol.  There should be a limit of one Eurovision article a year or something. Eraysor 15:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I nominate some articles at DYK but they were never posted at the Main Page. Then I saw Eurovision at the Main Page almost everyday, and... well never mind. --Howard the Duck 15:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Try complaining at Wikipedia talk:Did you know.  Those who run DYK may not 'watch' this talkpage. --64.229.230.179 16:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Err..

message: Lack of sleep, </br>
we're in too deep...</br>
The vandalbots are striking.</br>
Still we fight,</br>
for what is right,</br>
and we won't give in to anything.</br>
They makes us pull out all our hair...</br>
Is the system broken?</br>
No! We will not give in to them!</br>
We will fight!</br>
For what is right!</br>
And we won't give in to anything!</br>
Anarchy.</br>
It's Wikipedia's way.</br>
And yet we fight on through.</br>
We won't give up,</br>
we won't give in,</br>
we won't let the vandals win!</br>
The Wikisoldier gives a sigh,</br>
as they fight on through to the other side.</br>
Rests won't come.</br>
Trolls won't stop.</br>
Nothing seems to be going right.</br>
But the light shines through,</br>
and it pierces the darkness!</br>
The darkness curses,</br>
shields its eye,</br>
and gathers up its strengh.</br>
But the light sees all,</br>
and when the Wikisoldier falls,</br>
the light will pick them up again.</br> 
: Nicely done, User:172.193.50.226, but please consider signing up for an account and posting your poetry on your userpage, instead of posting here and ask that no 'unsigned' templates be posted.  You know enough to tell others to apply "subst:", so you should know what this talkpage is for. And you should also know how often this page gets vandalized.  You don't want vandals to revise your poem, eh? -- PFHLai 13:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh. I'll get to it eventually... --172.193.142.75 18:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good poem. But yeah, sign up for a account. It takes like 2 minutes. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  00:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps Wikipedia:Department of Fun should make room for Wiki-poetry like this. -- 64.229.230.31 13:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Editors March 

message: Please update ITN, as it has not been revised for the past few days. There are several new suggestions on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates.  Can an admin take a look, please? --64.229.230.179 16:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Thue. -- 64.229.230.179 18:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please update ITN (8 October 2006)

message: One could also say, "Anna Politkovskaya, a prominent supporter of Islamist Chechen rebels, has been shot dead."--Patchouli 00:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And one could also add "... on Putin's birthday." --64.229.227.83 02:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And both would be needlessly politicizing the issue. Granted, the fact that she was killed by someone associated with the Russian government is pretty obvious, but... —Cuiviénen 04:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Without politicizing it, this would be just another recent death. It's the political implications that qualify this death for ITN. Otherwise, where's the significance ? --64.229.226.110 14:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It help the Islamist agenda.--Patchouli 01:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anna Politkovskaya 

message: The AP permission note on the image says that thumbnails must be credited as "Joe Rosenthal / The Associated Press". Main page has the "Joe Rosenthal"; do we need the "Associated Press"? —ptk✰fgs 04:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Permission notwithstanding, it's still a clear case of fair use. Raul654 05:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it's fair use. ptk✰fgs was not asking if we have permission from AP, but whether we need to mention AP on the Main Page to give them photo credit. --64.229.230.31 13:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's really fair use, then no we don't, legally at least -Elmer Clark 22:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just thought I would ask. I'm not particularly familiar with the historical events fair use rationale. —ptk✰fgs 22:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raising the flag on Iwo Jima 

message: The user of IP 213.42.2.28 has vandalized the refferred talk page (I´ve already corrected it). He seems to be someone who just enter to make problems, according to his talk page. I ask someone to warn him again. Thanks. Tonyjeff 10:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try WP:AIV. --64.229.226.110 14:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism at [[Talk:National emblem]]

message: I think that the creators of wikipedia should add a suggestion box for misspelt words when searching for articles like on a famous web search engine beginning with G.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.105 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use this link for WP searching and your dream will come true.  --hydnjo talk 19:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Try Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Wikipedia relies on users as contributers. Maybe Wikipedians there know how to get this set up, or provide an explanation why this has not been done yet.  --64.229.230.31 13:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  searching on wikipedia 

message: Is the above (at http://www.wikpedia.org/) legit, 'merely intentionally confusing' or what? Jackiespeel 18:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not our website. Sadly, some low-level advertisers register website addresses based on spelling mistakes of popular websites. Forget to put in one letter, like the missing "I" after "WIK", and you end up on an unrelated site.  --  Zanimum 19:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Damn typosquatting! --199.71.174.100 20:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikpedia

message: Just to give you guys a head up, Wikipedia should be banned for not having the right info. i mean some of it is fact but other are just what people put on this page so they can give you the wrong info. Wikipedia is not my top website, and it shouln't be yours. This is my oponion that wikipedia is not falid information.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.9.209.72 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:General disclaimer.
--Patchouli 01:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with your oponion!  How can we start the campaign to ban Wikipedia?  Until then, I may be forced to sit here and be bombarded by info that is not falid. Breadhat 02:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yup! Plus, contrary to WiKipedia, all the info here is 100% falid. Not only should WiKipedia be banned, but it shouldn't be afailable vrom the fforld ffide ffeb.--SidiLemine 10:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're so falid, in fact, that we don't need a falid policy, unlike WiKipedia! 80.41.196.231 11:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If you wish to ban wikipedia you should look in to your local laws and speak to your local representative. You may very well be able to find this information on wikipedia if you wish. However it appears from your IP that you are in the US. Bear in mind that with many fairly progressive countries, even the US with all it's problems, it is fairly hard to ban things like wikipedia at the current time for freedom of speech reasons. So until and unless there is a major change, you probably won't have much success. Perhaps you should consider emigrating to North Korea? Nil Einne 03:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: or to China.--Badger151 04:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why use WiKipedia? 

message: It's strange enough that the "featured article" section is so Indian-heavy, but how is it that some obscure Indian criminal (which I doubt passes the NOT test) and some obscure Indian author winning an equally obscure literary prize can make it to the front page? Surely there are obscure Romanian criminals and obscure Angolan authors that can be featured instead? -- «klaus»
:I was under the impression that the Booker Prize is arguably the most prestigious literary prize in the world.  How is that obscure? Breadhat 02:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fairness, it is in fact a very prominent literary prize (at least in the Anglophone world), and the number of India-related items is presumably coincidental (and in my opinion it's not an unwelcome coincidence, given some of the other stuff that regularly clogs up the main page). But I think it's clear that the "international notability" criterion is actually rarely (if ever) enforced in the selection of ITN items- it may as well be removed really in order to minimise confusion of this sort. Badgerpatrol 02:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I suppose that its importance is limited to Anglophone literature.  Maybe I should think before I make overly sarcastic remarks. Breadhat 02:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think only British and Commonwealth authors are eligible, so it's even more restricted than that. Still a major literary award, however. Badgerpatrol 02:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is English Wikipedia afterall, not Romanian Wikipedia, not Angolan Wikipedia. What do you expect? What gets featured depends on the available content in the encyclopedia. -- 64.229.226.142 04:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Featured articles are not selected by topic but by their being well written. You are free to write any number of detailed and well-referenced articles about Angolan authors, and they will be on the main page in due course. dab (ᛏ) 10:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You're aware that India has more people in it than any other country in the world, right? That's one of the reasons we have so much coverage of it. Andrew Levine 01:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Really! Last time I checked, China had more people than India!  Tennis Dynamite 02:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's why we have more Main Page content on the PRC than any other country, followed by India!  Ummm... no, wait a sec... - BanyanTree 02:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget that the Great Firewall blocks most Chinese editors, so the number of native contributors to China related articles is pretty low. Most India articles are worked on at least in part by Indian Editors, just how UK articles are primarily worked on by British editors, Sweden articles by Swedes etc. Laïka 06:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, according to Wikipedia:Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China, the block has either been loosened or lifted this week.  It's just hitting media sources but they all appear to be basing their reports on the wiki and the wiki is sourcing the info to a blog that is sourcing that page... - BanyanTree 17:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Plus the fact that there is much more english speakers in India than in China.... Actually, I wonder if India wouldn't be the largest community of english speakers in the world... Which would explain (leaving the MP aside) the incredibly rapid growth of india related articles. Anyone has data on that?--SidiLemine 10:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: And let's not forget many Indians (from India) can speak English as it's a very common second language there and is even the first language of some Indians. While English is still common as a second language in China, it's no where near as common. Nil Einne 10:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen any data on how many English speakers there are in India but there are surely a lot more then are able to contribute to wikipedia. However it's one issue I often raise when Americans try to argue that American English is the most common English used or that we should use Google to establish precidence of a word Nil Einne 10:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to let y'all know, I know that there are probably more people that can contribute from India (Is China's ban really being lifted!?!), but I was just pointing out that China has more people than India. Sorry if I sounded rude. Tennis Dynamite 20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obscurity 

message: 1850 - The University of Sydney, Australia's oldest university, was established in Sydney.
Is there really any need for the extra Sydney? Where else would the University of Sydney be established? Jimmmmmmmmm 08:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. After a brief discussion on IRC, I've edited out "in Sydney." Coincidentally, that's the first time I've editing anything transcluded on the main page. Luna Santin 08:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry about that!  This probably was confused with the date of the school's 1952 inauguration.  I've removed the entry from On this day... and reworded the original October 11 blurb accordingly.  —David Levy 17:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for fixing this so quickly.  I think the October 11th anniversary can stay. Just change "established in 1850" to "inaugurated in 1852". I don't suggest moving it to October 1st unless the people of U of S actually celebrate this on October 1st.  The current collection of October 1st anniversaries seems more interesting, anyway. -- 199.71.174.100 17:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already added the entry to the October 1, but I'll restore today's entry with the suggested wording.  We can decide which anniversary is more noteworthy next year.  —David Levy 17:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On this day 

message: I'm setting up my own wiki and want to remove the heading "Main Page" from the main page, like on Wikipedia.  I haven't been able to find anywhere that explains how to do it; what's the trick? Chrylis 20:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The code is on MediaWiki:Monobook.js. If you know JavaScript, iirc, it is function mainPageTransform. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wait, are you taking about the actual header instead of the tab? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is on the same JS file, MediaWiki:Monobook.js starting with the line
 var mpTitle = "Main Page";
and ending with 
 if (isMainPageFront && !isDiff) {document.write('<style type="text/css">/*<![CDATA[*/ #lastmod, #siteSub, #contentSub, h1.firstHeading { display: none !important; } /*]]>*/</style>');}
Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical question about the Main Page 

message: hi guys, recently someone has been signing onto my wikipedia account and has been vandalizing articles like george w bush, emma watson, and creating an true statements about some book they wrote. I have been getting all sorts of messages telling me to stop telling the truth or else ill be blocked from ever editing wikipedia again. how can i get this person to keep signing onto my account and doing all these edits from my name, and how can i keep all these warnings so i dont have all these things hanging on my name, maybe blocking me from editing wikipedia eventually. i want to be held responsible for someone elses edits thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtapro91 (talk • contribs) 
:Hello; this really isn't the right page to ask questions pertinent to editing, being more for discussion of the Main Page (see the help desk for more information), but I would recommend that you change your password immediately by clicking on "my preferences." Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  my account hacked 

message: to any articles that have a "npov" to it? -thebird
:Our features articles, such as the one on the main page (currently FA Premier League) are an example of our best work so they of course exemplify our policies such as NPOV well. Nil Einne 04:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you by any chance mean NPOV disputes, try :Category:NPOV_disputes. -Elmer Clark 03:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello does anybody have links to... 

message: There are many articles about persons where you can't put up sourced trivia & fansites. It's really confusing me, what's wrong with sourced trivia & fansites?
this page is just aweful-Ggirl
:*Fansites tend to be unreliable and POV while Trivia tends to be irrelevant and trivial. That's my understanding, anyway.—Abraham Lure 17:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: **Trivia is trivial? OH WOW. ;) 80.41.231.134 14:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: ***That does seem like kind of a trivial observation. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 16:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Also see WP:AVTRIV. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia & fansites