Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 11

message: For some reason I can't view pictures on this computer for Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia is the only problem site I have for pictures uploading. Anyone know why this might be? 71.173.60.113 00:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I just had to edit multi-lingual back to the normal English multilingual. I seem to remember that MS spell checkers don't recognize the word and that may be the reason why the hyphenated form has come into being. I started working in the area of multilingualism back in the 1960s before we needed to bother with computerised aids - and then, I can assure you, it was without the hyphen! Ipigott 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Multilingual

message: Being a new wikipedia user, there's much I have to learn, but I was a little taken aback by what seems to be a draconian editorial policy on the site. it appears that articles are frequently deleted or edited for no good reason. i'm aware that we want to maintain a crop of good credible articles, but it seems that users are oftentimes too hasty in putting an article up for deletion, often citing neologisms or unreferenced material as the reason. as long as articles are accurate, verifiable and don't put forward a POV, shouldn't they merit inclusion? Linguelle 20:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should repost this in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), where it is more likely to be seen and discussed. Luvcraft 20:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draconian Content Control 

message: I think the four links at the bottom are some kind of broken.
hsb:Wikipedija
cu:Википедї
diq:Wikipedia
zh-classical:維基百科
91.6.24.44 22:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to fix this and it should be working correctly right now. The languages now correctly appear in the language menu instead of the bottom of the page. Wim 22:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken "in other languages" Links 

message: I think this is worthy of going in the criticisim section. Wikipedia admins frequently delete articles (such as brian peppers or the tourettes guy ) even if the public objects to it. Most non-members agree that one person isnt enough to decide weither or not an article should be deleted.
: I agree. There are too many self-important Wikipeds? Wikipedites? who feel it is their unfailing universal responsibility to censor material in a near Stalinistic fashion. A better system, involving greater consensus, should be in place to determine what articles are worthy of deletion. A discerning eye is one thing. Petty vindictive behaviour is another.
::It's Wikipedians. Please sign your comments using four tildes at the end (~~~~). --WikiSlasher 14:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article deletion 

message: I'd like to see a replacement for the Talk page. One that resembles a forum package, such as Vbulletin. 
My biggest gripe with Talk is that other users can edit your comments. Also would be nice if it could support threaded replies...
:That would make reading the talk page comments much easier.  I like the idea. SmartGuy 14:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sometimes fix spelling and grammar errors on talk pages when I see them. Is that not the point of Wikipedia? Of course people can edit your comment in a bad way, but people can vandalize the pages too. 75.153.221.227 05:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Replacement for Talk?

message: Where (on the globe) was wikipedia launched from?
:I would say the answer is San Diego, California.  Nupedia, the forerunner to Wikipedia, was originally in San Diego.  Accorasfding to a San Diego Union Tribune article I read recently, they were still based here when the idea to use a wiki was hatched.  At some point, according to the same article, they moved to Florida because of cheaper rent for office space.  Headquarters of Wikipedia is now in Florida.  The article does not make clear whether the Wikipedia name was first used in San Diego.  The article is here. Johntex\talk 05:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you need one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.68.216.143 (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where 

message: If users come to wikipedia with a topic (text/string?!) in mind, then they could have a good understanding about the topic and they could find some weblinks to go further. The content evolves as users use it.
Is that the basic idea?!
Forgot to add sig. :) --V4vijayakumar 12:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic Idea 

message: Search string correction functionality is poor. Google’s “did you mean <right string>?” is more useful. If we enter “testdatabase” in search textbox, Wikipedia could not correct it to “test database”, but Google did it right. Not only this case, but in many cases Wikipedia fails to do the right thing. :(
Forgot to add sig. :) --V4vijayakumar 11:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this perhaps because no article named "test database" exists? 75.153.221.227 05:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search string correction 

message: Online editable questions and answers could be a good idea. Let’s call it as “Wikipedia answers” (Google answers and Yahoo answers). Questions and evolving answers could be a great thing. As we can see from AOL user search strings release, most users enter questions as a search query. Expecting “Wikipedia answers” soon. :) --V4vijayakumar 11:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: Wikipedia answers 

message: What's so bad about original research? Isn't that what most encyclopedias, online or offline, are comprised of? I mean, come on! The editors can do whatever they want with all the bad information, but what about the good information that happens to be original research? They get to filter out original research without trying to discern the real from the fake? What's up with that?!
:Encyclopedias are secondary sources.  That means they cannot contain original research by their very definition. — <FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Da</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000CC">rk</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000099">Sh</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000066">ik</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">i</FONT> talk/contribs 23:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Article Content

message: Could someone elaborate on the Funding section?  I rembember wikpedia had a fund raising banner (like an ad), and reading media articles which mentioned WP's large bandwidth costs, but this page doesn't tell me much (bandwidth is $321K/quarter).  What would be really interesting would be a profesional estimate of WP as a private company; top 20 on the web. - Peregrinefisher 05:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Funding

message: "Wikipedia has been viewed as an experiment in a variety of social, political, and economic systems, including anarchy, democracy, and communism.", I was really interested in following this up but no sources are given, at all.--JollyRogerz 05:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia...the experiment 

message: I think that we should change the definition of wikipedia on the introduction: from "Wikipedia is a multilingual, Web-based free content encyclopedia project" to "Wikipedia is a multilingual, Web-based free content  information bank; do you realy think that our english wikipedia is a encyclopedia, in the classic meaning? I dont think so. 88.155.171.119 14:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is an encyclopedia. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know a liitle about wikipedia; (-: I am writing on the German language wikipedia. you can be happy or not, but website with articles about everyone who did something that looks to someone important, can not defining himself as a "encyclopedia" in the classic meaning of the word. 88.155.171.119 14:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just stating the facts of what Wikipedia is and is not. Please read encyclopedia. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  i read the english article about "encyclopedia, and I think it is a little strange. I, and a lot of other people, dont think that encyclopedia is "contains information on all branches of knowledge"; I think that encyclopedia should be all the knowledge that we have to remember, to preserve and to save for the next generations. 88.155.171.119 15:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the introduction 

message: Why not add more simple english pages, especially under scientific stuff? Some of the articles are so overloaded with just stuff that it's annoying and confusing. I would do it myself, but I know practically nothing abouut the articles I'm talking about. (Obviously, or else I wouldn't be looking under simple english).
-- Not actually a member, just some guy 10/23/06
:You can try the Simple English Wikipedia. Harryboyles 07:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple English 

message: I was wondering I've recently changed my name from Jim Bart to Cali Drama King, but WP still resognizes me as Jim Bart, how do I change this? Cali Drama King 14:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly on your talk page while putting help on it. Also see Wikipedia:Changing username. London UK  (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm sorry I didn't know where to ask this... 

message: Is Wikipedia supposed to be humorous or serious?
I don't know, either way it's gangster, just joking; more serious less humorus, don't put silly jokes on articles it is considered vandalism, if you like humor you can go here to uncyclopedia. Pseudoanonymous 03:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aww, there goes my chance to place "WHOAAA INFINITE PARADOX" on the top of the wikipedia article. X) Ah yes, good old Uncyclopedia. Chef Brian 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I have come across talk pages where people don't sign their posts with four tildes.  Not only is it annoying but it opens the way for flame wars directed at the wrong people, or at the poster who did not sign.  Why not have it so that the four tildes are automatically entered when the text is sent?  I'm sure there might be more involved but why not something of that nature?Stovetopcookies 18:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed suggestion: Automatic signature insertion for talk pages 

message: There is too much UK spelling or references on wikipedia.  Wikipedia was created by a man from ALABAMA...that's as American as it gets.  However, when one looks for British people say john wiki says: John was a man.  When one looks for American john wiki says: John was an American man. Also, color, labor, not colour and labour.  Finally, I nobody cares about how high 50 cent got on 'UK charts' or the percentage of British kids think timbuktu is real. just because the website begins EN.wik... doesn't mean its English. USA! --Blambloom 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reckon it does, otherwise it would be us.wikipedia.org. Does it really matter that much? CloudNine 16:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what does us mean as a language code?? English is called English, regardless of what country it is spoken in. Georgia guy 17:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it really matter, as these spelling differences don't affect the understandability of an article? It may well be that things like "the percentage of British kids think timbuktu is real" is just the data easily available to the author, there will be studies from America used as references as well.  There also isn't a huge culture/society difference between the UK and US so chances are that data like this will be similar between the 2 countries anyway. Chris Lewins 13:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With reference to the music charts thing, the US charts aren't popularly used, nor accurate really of the American view.
Last I checked, Wikipedia does not simply provide an American view of anything. Seems pretty dumb to exclude the United Kingdom out of information. Then again, you sound like the kind of guy who still thinks the South won the war.  71.173.60.113 00:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: British and Wikipedia

message: ...or leading little Christian sects, or getting into Wikipedia edit wars, or boring their friends...  --Striver 16:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference

message: i think that thers material relevant for this article
Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-10-30/Wikipedia_valuation
--Pixel ;-) 18:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothetical valuation of Wikipedia 

message: 'Network reliability' is a fairly generic and short section (it could be applied to many sites that have those kind of problems). I'm wondering what the consensus is on deleting the section and associated images, as it doesn't really add to the article much. CloudNine 19:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Network reliability' section

message: The second reference says I don't have permission. see here. - Peregrinefisher 19:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plots per day reference not working 

message: Are Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encarta, and such traditional encyclopedias Wikipedia's competitors? Their so different. At their core, these are are traditional paper encyclopedias and wikipedia is a free-content online work. If so, how do we which encyclopedia is ahead. There is no market share or sales to base a comparison. I don't think you could compare number users or articles, accuracy of those articles, or hits to the website. Wikipedia is so different from Britannica. How do we know which encyclopedia is winning.--Wikiphilia 05:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competition 

message: Why are the Wikipedia statistics (e.g. about active Wikipedians) not accessable anymore? Markus Schulze 10:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted a question on Bugzilla about a month ago (which was at least a month after it had gone down). I received a reply from user:Brion Vibber, who said that it was down "for the moment due to a privacy issue." I then posted another question a couple of days ago asking what he meant and when it would be back up, and he deleted my comment. I guess that answered my question.--HQCentral 01:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does that answer your question? It would seem like a slap in the face to me. --WikiSlasher 14:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia statistics 

message: Is Wikipedians really a word? Surely in the article they should be referred to as users? (I'd change it, but the page is protected). 82.32.8.6 19:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added an explanation, using the word "contributors" since that includes editors and admins, and is easily intelligible to the non-Wikipedian. "User" could mean someone who just reads Wikipedia. Djcastel 17:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedians 

message: I couldn't find how:
"Note: Because Wikipedia articles are made by many people, some articles may contain untrue information, so, before using Wikipedia in a project make sure that the references are from trustworthy sites."
found its way into the popular culture section but it was certainly out of place so I removed it. raptor 01:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: When writing or editing an article, how do you add stuff like subheadings, tables of contents, and those funky colored boxes that say stuff like "this article is a stub..."(does it have something to do with html, or whatever the heck it's called, because if it does, I have no clue how to do that kind of stuff).  Nineteenninetyfour 21:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is solely for suggesting improvements to the Wikipedia article; if you have a question, try asking at the help desk. I just welcomed you, so I hope the links there answered a few of your questions. —The Great Llama talk 21:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm New 

message: Is this article ever really going to be neutral when it's written by Wikipedians? Robocracy 02:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, maybe we could reverse the semi-protection. Only anons are allowed to edit this page. :-) theProject 05:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That is a good point, it is important to monitor this article for neutrality and accuracy. --Signed by:  Chazz - (responses). @ 19:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Catch 22

message: skiedn
wimkis
slkieee
:I second his idea —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.246.231.88 (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? --WikiSlasher 06:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Learn to spell. This is an ENGLISH Wikipedia. So speak English!Chavmusiksux 18:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wiki 

message: even if there is massive vandalism, unlock it ! 72.36.230.178
:This coming from a massive vandal?--Vercalos 18:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't unlock it; the vandals would flood in by the thousands!-- KnowledgeLord 05:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unlock it 

message: It's just a few articles left to one and a half million. --84.231.172.81 20:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now we have 1,500,000. article. --84.231.172.81 21:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Kanab Ambersnail.~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 17:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1,500,000 

message: Just want people to know that they should avoid using wikipeidia as a source of information.
Too much POV and anyone can write what they want.Their policy on source of information is weak.What's worse is if they don't like what you've written,they block you.
But that is not to say we shouldn't try and improve it.
Here's a good story of how wikipedia posts what the writers want to post:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm
Nadirali 03:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not the first one to state this. We are aware of this and are open to the fact that Wikipedia is not perfect. If you read the Criticism of Wikipedia article and the Criticism section in this article, you can find more information about it. By the way, it's not good to refer to Wikipedia as "they" when you are writing on "it" itself. Harryboyles 03:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking at your talk page, Nadirali, you're not shy of removing content and making unconsentual POV edits either. function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 07:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unreliable site 

message: Considering that Wikipedia has now been mentioned on the show Jericho - in fact viewers all over the world have been advised to look up Jericho (TV Series) on the wikipedia to find out about up and coming episodes!210.84.35.147 15:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of TV references 

message: Story here. Interesting to add to the article. function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 10:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experts rate Wikipedia's accuracy higher than non-experts 

message: I find it laugh out loud hilarious that the subsection on Citations under Criticism and Controversy contains not just one but TWO citation tags.
For the love of all that is holy, if anyone has a source that can be cited as a reference for this section, please cite it! SmartGuy 15:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was humourous, I must say. However, this information is covered under the Accuracy and Comprehensiveness section and thus I've removed it. Harryboyles 10:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations needed for [[Wikipedia#Citations|Citations]]

message: I think I've looked thoroughly, but I could be wrong.
I don't think the page mentions what time zone Wikipedia operates in.
"Current time" doesn't seem especially relevant on Wikipedia, especially because there are many current times. But the "Featured Article" ... I would assume it changes at midnight.  Is this midnight in Florida?
Midnight GMT?  Seoul?
Oh, It is also used when signig, with timestamp.
Thanks, anyway.--The Chairman 10:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Zone 

message: I simply find it a bit ironic that the article on Wikipedia itself has stub sections and isn't featured. I mean, it's a bit embarrassing, isn't it..? New users will come here to find more about Wikipedia, as I did.. Wikipedia simply isn't represented too well by this article. Clientele 04:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very difficult article to edit. There are hundreds, if not thousands, watching it and ensuring that it maintains a certain kind of quality. Changes require discussion on the talk page much more often in the case of this article. It's also difficult to write about Wikipedia from a NPOV. But eventually, this will all be fixed... I'm working on it, for one! function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 13:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article - not a good 'face' of Wikipedia 

message: How many people visit Wikipedia per month? Using the caption "Wikipedia receives over 2000 page requests per second. More than 100 servers have been set up to handle the traffic.", that's 5.184 billion people each month. But other sources I talk to say seven, even fourteen billion access Wikipedia a month.  --  Zanimum 21:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A page request and a person are different.  One person, me, may look at 100 pages in one day.
Unfortunately, that doesn't make me 100 people.  I can't answer your question myself.
But I hope that explains how Wikipedia is being used by more people than there are - and certainly more than IPs.  Either this, or Aliens...--The Chairman 23:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I know the difference, it was just a poorly worded question. This article says 2000 pages/s, or 5.184 billion pages/m, whereas the other source said 14 billion pages/s (not viewers).  --  Zanimum 14:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viewership 

message: Can't we just call it a compound word? Please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.205.183.128 (talk • contribs).
:But it isn't. :) function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 10:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On top of that, it is a stated goal of wikipedia that portmanteau eventually be linked on every single page. It's practically keeping the word alive itself. Chris Cunningham 11:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portmanteau 

message: According to Guardian, Iran blocked access to Wikipedia. Do we have an article about blocking of Wikipedia in various countries? I know about the one about China, but AFAIK, Wikipedia has been blocked in other countries too, like Tunisia or Saudi Arabia. bogdan 18:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't seem to have one. It's actually very important that this is reported on. We should add a new section to this article about the blockings, then fork it into a new article later if it expands well enough. function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 19:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran blocked access to Wikipedia 

message: One suggestion would be that those who edit wikipedia regurarly are somewhat "geeks".  You may not want to use that exact word.
Marqmike2 04:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of people who edit Wikipedia aren't exactly geeks. There are a lot of people from all over the world doing all kinds of things who edit articles. An article on football may be edited by someone who you wouldn't normally classify as "geek". An article on Pythagoras may be edited by a notable mathematician. There isn't really any way to say something about whether someone's a geek or not. function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 07:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the bias section 

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.<Br>
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 11:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a junkyard of miscellaneous pieces of information. Deletion policy is as necessary as anything else. --Wooty Woot? contribs 21:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course it is not democratic, because WP is not a democracy. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 02:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of, or at least discussion of, Deletion Putsch 

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) 01:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's been blocked indefinitely. --Majorly 01:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VANDALISM- CODE RED 

message: the Wikipedia grouth chart needs to be updated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.59.104.8 (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia grouth 

message: Is it just me, or is there a penis on the page there? I can't find the template it came from though. Do I need to clear my cache? :/ RHB 10:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Vandalism?

message: I'm still seeing 6 images of a penis on this article. Could the main admin please correct the templates (or whatever) and ban the aforementioned user? 193.217.63.184 16:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The vandalism is still here 

message: It's still on here! Bearly541 09:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be fixed. I believe that all templates currently transcluded onto this page are protected at this time. Luna Santin 09:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: There is A PENIS ON THIS PAGE

message: The article states Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report has oft times instigated his viewers to vandalize articles in humorous ways, once doing so on the wikipedia article on bears.  In fact, the article was about elephants, not bears.
12.76.50.200 15:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in Stephen Colbert paragraph

message: Ref #4, "Note that it is the United States copyright law that applies to all of Wikipedia's content." has a  tag in it. It looks like someone's trying to make a footnote of some sort and it's a little confusing. --WikiSlasher 14:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed tag in reference 

message: heres somthing i found in the paper this morning that might be of intrest to this article, its about a study of about the amount of stress people feel when they used the web, commissioned by a company called rackspace and caried out by "experts" from the social issues research centre in oxford. all well and good. the thing is, they released a list of websites that were the most stress free to use and wikipedia came top acording to the research, and i was wondering if that stat could have a place in this article?--JWJW|Have a nice day :) 15:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume they meant "stress-free to get information from" rather than "stress-free to edit". Sockatume 15:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Recent Study 

message: So far wikipedia has done a good job with all of its articles. Everyone knows wikipedia is most likely going to be the most informational encyclopedia if it already isn't! The only thing that wikipedia can change is that they should make it so that you have an account to edit stuff.
Ghetto USB 19:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gooood articles 

message: The first paragraph of this section reads as follows (boldfacing added):
:Wikipedia uses a type of software called a "wiki", which allows for content to be authored by multiple people easily. Visitors are allowed to add, remove, or otherwise edit and change its content to help build the encyclopedia. Such contributions can be made without the need to register a user account. It is therefore possible for large numbers of people to create articles and update them quickly as new information becomes available; it also means online vandalism of and disagreement about content are common.
The boldfaced section suggests to me that unregistered users can create articles. But they can't, can they? Does anyone else read this passage the way I do? ForDorothy 18:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two ideas: 1) cut the "Such contributions" sentence entirely; 2) introduce the idea of registered and unregistered users in the lead, in relation to either the idea of "volunteers" or the idea of "susceptibility to vandalism." ForDorothy 18:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote that initially. I don't remember using "create articles", but it's linked to a WP page (BAD!) so I guess that someone changed it. I altered it to say that non-registered users can help write articles and added a footnote that explains a registration will grant the user a few extra privilidges. function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 07:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics section 

message: To the best of my knowledge, I was first described as co-founder of Wikipedia back in September 2001 by The New York Times.  That was also my description in Wikipedia's own press releases from 2002 until 2004.  With my increasing distance from the project, and as it grew in the public eye, however, some of those associated with the project have found it convenient to downplay and even deny my crucial, formative involvement.  In fact, in the early years of the project, my role was not in dispute at all.
The following links have come to light, and they should dispel much of the
confusion:
http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html
--Larry Sanger 22:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's off topic, but I just realised you could read that web address as "Larry's anger". (I'm not implying anything by that) :) --WikiSlasher 04:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. I think that all of these sources that Mr. Sanger mentions should be cited somewhere on Wikipedia, along with other sources, and wherever the two are mentioned as founders there should be a link or at least a footnote containing a link to that. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links of interest 

message: Being as this has been a source of controversey of late and this article is likely to be viewed by many as an authoritative source, I think it is slightly irresponsible to state this information without at least providing a footnote to where a more in depth discussion of the founding and the roles of these two individuals can be found. From what little I've gleaned of this on talk pages and in articles where this information is cited to some degree it seems they both agree that Jimbo was a creator and Larry calls himself a co-creator but Jimbo doesn't agree with that. I'm not even necessarily suggesting that this should be changed to just Jimbo, but I think that there should be a footnote/reference/something. The infobox is too prominent a place to contain this information in such a naked way. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Being as this has been a source of controversey of late and this article is likely to be viewed by many as an authoritative source, I think it is slightly irresponsible to state this information without at least providing a footnote to where a more in depth discussion of the founding and the roles of these two individuals can be found." There currently is such a "footnote". It's the link at the top of the article labeled "discussion". :)--74.104.131.76 19:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: For an outside like me, It seems Larry Sanger has played a very important role in the creation of Wikipedia, its name, how it should work etc. Eventhough he did'nt imagine that it would be a big success. He can be well an employee of Jimbo Wales at that time, but many ideas of Wikipedia came from his mind. This is just like a scientist working under Government funds discovers a new invention. The fact that his research is funded by Government do not mean he is not credited with the invention. So I think it is appropriate to call Larry as co-founder of Wikipedia. --59.93.12.154 06:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created by: Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger 

message: How do I add pictures, photos, and things like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.180.238 (talk • contribs) 
: Go to the following help page: Help:Contents/Images and media. ArthurWeasley 23:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Pictures 

message: There is nothing in here that says "THIS IS WIKIPEDIA" or anything like that :O 24.107.103.220 01:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" right under the title :) Anyway might want to have a look at WP:ASR. --WikiSlasher 02:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the same thing. Instead of beginning; "Wikipedia is a multilingual, Web-based free-content encyclopedia project. " Maybe it could begin; "Wikipedia, the resource upon which this article is founded; is a multilingual, Web-based free-content encyclopedia project." Nagelfar 04:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would also be pushing Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Harryboyles 04:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should not mention that in any case. For starters, this isn't just Wikipedia's encyclopedia. It's the free encyclopedia that anyone may use. Many other sites do, so it's not a good idea to link it to this site so explicitly. Secondly, we have rules against this kind of thins (WP:SELF). Thirdly, a self-reference is bad writing style. function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 14:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even so, saying that the the 'article is founded' via wikipedia is not saying it is being "read" from, or off of, wikipedia. It just lets people know the source. Not necessarily self-reference, just reference of a fact that happens to correlate with the self in context. While not necessarily doing so outside of such context. Nagelfar 04:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: umm...=

message: In the bias section  
"For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,[55]"
has been added, personally it seems abit bias in it self, as the sourced used is a religous one. Also the example programme given from CNN is not well known outside of the U.S.A, does any one know of a more internationally known example? Thought I'd flag it up here to see what people think.Struds 19:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't agree more; an interesting case of self-reference on the part of whoever was responsible. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: Excuse me, but how do you create new pages? I am a new user. Thank you. - unsigned
:Type the name of the page you wish to create in the Search box; click Go; Follow instructions. The name must not be the name of an existing page. WAS 4.250 21:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be useful as well : Help:Starting a new page. Happy editing! ArthurWeasley 21:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CREATING NEW PAGES 

message: Excuse me, but how do you redirect pages? (For example, if you type in asoue, you go to a series of unfortunate events). I am a new user. Thank you.
:Please note that this page is for discussing changes to the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia itself. It's not a meeting place for people to ask questions. That said, redirecting pages is easy. Just make a whole new page and have the contents be:
 #REDIRECT article to where this should lead
:Please see Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page for more information. function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 15:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Help:Redirect has much more information about this topic. If you have any more questions, the best place to ask them would be at the Wikipedia:Help desk, seeing as that is what it is for, whereas this page is meant for discussing changes and improvements to the Wikipedia article. Harryboyles 15:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  REDIRECTING NEW PAGES 

message: What is the common proper abbreviation for "Wikipedia", for use on internal talk pages?  It would be good if this article mentioned that in passing, right at the start. 69.87.202.73 14:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People sometimes use "WP"; that, however, shouldn't be part of the article I think. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 15:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The abbreviation is something that only editors use. I've never seen it used outside of Wikipedia. That means it shouldn't be included. function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 18:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abbreviation?

message: MERRY CHRISTMAS, WIKIPEDIA AND AHAPPY ANOTHER YEAR!!!  sorry, I couldn't help it --Chikinpotato11 12:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 12/25

message: I wonder whether some of the content on "Wikipedia in other formats" should be broken off to another main article / list?  Edratzer 01:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia in other formats 

message: The image we're using: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia_growth.png
Is innacurate due to the recent lack of stats for English language growth, i believe due to stats not being recorded anymore, giving the impression that growth has stopped on English language Wikipedia which is obviously not the case). What can we do about this? Benbread 13:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to get in touch with whoever maintains that graph. In the meantime, we can use an old one; it does the job just fine, even if it's not entirely up-to-date. function MSikma(const U, T : Float) : Float { Visit my page } ; 16:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a newer version which is more accurate here: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngArticlesTotal.htm --Galadh 20:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor growth graph - Innacurate forEnglish Language Growth 

message: The evdince on this page is amazing 2 prove him gulity! Fattdoggy 19:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IT IS! 

message: I'm not being stupit about this, what's the difference between Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia that we see online and the encyclopedias that we see in the librarys across the United States. I would have to say for my guess that Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia is the #1 best. You will have to thank me on that one. I love Wikipedia! ---Ohioian 11:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC}
:It's Free as in Freedom.  Wikipedia is GDFL'd, library encyclopaedia are Copyright. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stuart Morrow (talk • contribs) 12:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have a question on Wikipedia ''The Free Encyclopedia'' 

message: someone should add this. 
main article: Chinese Wikipedia Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China 
I am not sure if those two are the same article, the titles are different. it is the same person who wrote for those two newspapers. On the other hand, the words seem to be different. I am not a paid member of nyt, so I don't know what is in the NY times article, the quoted text was the only thing that I read. 
According to International Herald Tribune Asia-Pacific:"on sensitive questions of China's modern history or on hot-button issues, the Chinese version diverges so dramatically from its English counterpart that it sometimes reads as if it were approved by the censors themselves." Chinese-language Wikipedia presents different view of history
On December 1, 2006, The New York Times published another report by Howard W. French, titled as "Wikipedia lays bare two versions of China's past."
"Some say the object should be to spread reliable information as widely as possible, and that, in any case, self-censorship is pointless because the government still frequently blocks access to Wikipedia for most Chinese Internet users. 'There is a lot of confusion about whether they should obey the neutral point of view or offer some compromises to the government,' said Isaac Mao, a well-known Chinese blogger and user of the encyclopedia. 'To the local Wikipedians, the first objective is to make it well known among Chinese, to get people to understand the principles of Wikipedia step by step, and not to get the thing blocked by the government."
And "the articles are already pre-censored by party-leaning moderators and users." --SummerThunder 12:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an ongoing edit dispute. See Talk:Chinese Wikipedia. -- ran (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the chinese controversy

message: Including only text files and pictures, among english version entries only, what would be the memory (roughly) required to download the entire Wikipedia site (again, only in English and with text and pictures only)?  In other words, how much memory does it take for Wikipedia to store all the english files?
Thanks,
-Kitra101
:You can find out here. Last time I checked, the database dump of all text plus revisions was 16 GB. I'm not sure about the images. function msikma(const U, T : Float) : Float { to my page. } ; 10:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEW QUESTION 

message: #REDIRECT Main_Page ;) Stuart Morrow 12:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed rewrite