Talk:Main Page/Archive 111

message: I just added Palladium Plaza Shopping Mall article. Do you like it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolasLord (talk • contribs) 16:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, very nicely done. 38.112.225.84 18:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And... it's been deleted. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 02:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article 

message: :Representative Martha W. Griffiths of Michigan, however, achieved success on Capitol Hill with her House Joint Resolution No. 208, which was adopted by the House on October 12, 1971, with a vote of 354 yeas, 24 nays and 51 not voting (117 Congressional Record 35815). Griffiths' joint resolution was then adopted by the Senate on March 22, 1972, with a vote of 84 yeas, 8 nays and 7 not voting (118 Congressional Record 9598). And with that, the ERA was finally presented by the 92nd Congress to the state legislatures for ratification, as Article V of the Constitution prescribes, with a seven-year deadline for ratification by the required three-quarters of the legislatures (38 legislatures).
I'm totally strange to this thing of discussing the front page, my apologies if somehow I did something wrong. --Extremophile 18:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to OTD guidelines (Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries) there should only be 5 events. There are already 5 items all of which seem fairly noteable. Given that this amendment, while noteable was as far as I'm aware neither groundbreaking nor unique particularly since it failed (other countries have similiar constitiounal guarantees now, some of them may have already had them either written or implied before then) it's not clear to me which, if any, item you feel this should displace. Perhaps on the 50th anniversy or if it ever succeeds. Also the article has a 'need sources' tag and we generally only want resonable quality articles as primary links on the main page given it's primary purpose os to highlight wikipedia Nil Einne 01:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing about [[Equal Rights Amendment]] for today? 

message: I noticed  a strange image in the place of a Knights templar image....IT says in the image that "Please upload something..."...whats up?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyoraish (talk • contribs) 07:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Main_Page_image_incident. WjBscribe 07:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture knights templar 

message: Thanks to all wikipedians for all good articles! 80.217.65.124 14:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. :-) ΚαροτΜαν 20:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  :) 

message: Some of you may be aware of the proposal for today's featured list, which is crashing and burning its way into the land of the rejected. However, it appears that some support existed for the general idea of featured lists on the Main Page. As such, I, and some other editors, thought that this, more general discussion deserved its own time. You can contribute to the discussion at this subsection of the Village Pump. Thanks. IvoShandor 04:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Village pump discussion on Featured lists 

message: The Hindi Wikipedia doesn't appear in the "Wikipedia in other languages" list at the left. Is there any way to add it? Amit@Talk 12:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it would be there, but does it have over 25,000 articles? Your Grace Lord Sir Dreamy of Buckland tm 12:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You see, the bit on the mainpage only goes as low as 25,000 articles, while the Hindi Wikipedia has only 13,000+ articles. Your Grace Lord Sir Dreamy of Buckland tm 12:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I understand now, but that makes me curious how the "nepal bhasha" wikipedia already has that many articles when the hindi one deosn't; I'd reckon there are far more people working on the hindi one. But anyway, thanks for answering my query. Amit@Talk 13:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many medium-sized Wikipedias of less common languages (the biggest offender being Volapuk) consist mostly of translated articles about places. I don't know if that's the case on the Nepal Bhasa Wikipedia, which may simply have a few very dedicated editors who have created tons of pages—I can't read the script to even get an idea of what it's saying—but I wouldn't be surprised to learn otherwise. —Verrai 17:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindi Wikipedia mention 

message: Hi how about we add a review part on pages about media and toys/models. eg. films/music/formats/computer and bord games/toys/figers/tv shows , and so one.
if you have seen/got the thing in qustion then you add to the review secshon your opinium. Anyone up for it? JosephK19  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT 128.227.61.77 18:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have a feeling that user reviews would lead to a lot of worthless content.  Reviews of things like movies and music change along with popular culture, while an encyclopedia (with regard to popular culture) is really meant to reflect the total public opinion of something at the time. 007patrick 23:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Public opinion? IIRC, an encyclopedia supposed to represent facts? ffm 23:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: We have a lead on Intelligent design, and then a headline mentioning the Armenian Genocide. Yikes! Hires an editor 01:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick - someone change the featured picture to nazis or mosquito sex or something... Raul654 02:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose everything is controversial to everyone to some extent. Tourskin 02:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take exception to that !! -Elmer Clark 02:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking to me? -- !! ?? 09:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Lol the image today looks like the Turkish amabassador is an old lady. Controversial, would you all not say so? Tourskin 02:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No need, the IPCC and Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize so controversy day continues... Nil Einne 11:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, Elephant is not a featured article; nor are African elephant (or African Bush Elephant and African Forest Elephant if you prefer) or Asian Elephant, or mammoth or mastodon; and the featured article on Crushing by elephant has already been on the Main Page.  But the articles on some charismatic megafauna are still eligible for the main page - Hippopotamus, for example. -- !! ?? 09:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think pre-emptive protection of an article because we're featuring truthiness is necessary. If it is, every time I type the word "Colbert" the entire Spanish Wikipedia should be protected. Still, a lookout or an sprotect may be in order tomorrow. -- Chris is me (user/review/talk) 05:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I heard that Stephen Colbert actually speaks Swahili, so we should protect the entire contents of the Swahili Wikipedia instead, just as a precaution. You never know what kind of vandalism Mr. Colbert will insert into THAT language! ;-) Dr. Cash 06:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this sarcasm?  Battleship and Knights Templar lasted approximately 24 hours, just like all the rest. 69.95.50.15 14:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe he/she's referring to the vandalism. But every article is vandalised, even articles which 'bleeding hearts' like. Indeed they're probably vandalised more if anything Nil Einne 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this Controversy day? 

message: Why I see every next day featured article about American pop group? I wounder whether there is really such big demand to read about pop groups pruthvi 02:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People write about what they like, and lots of people like to write about American pop groups. As long as the articles meet FA standards, they deserve to show up on the front page. If you'd prefer more variety, pick a topic of interest to you and see if you can help get it to Featured status. Zagalejo^^^ 06:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec)See Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#I think that the articles listed on the Main Page are awful. Isn't the Main Page biased towards certain topics? What can be done about it? - BanyanTree 06:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Bravo pruthvi! It seems to mee too that every other day is about unknown pop groups or cult video games. Really, if these games or groups vanished tomorrow, a few hundred teenage fans would be sad for a day or two but that would be it. I think featured articles should pass a "Posterity" test; Would someone (other than a student of early-21st century video games) reading this in the future, find this article interesting? If no, it's not a featured article. Otherwise, Wikipedia just becomes a playground for fancruft.--Oscar Bravo 07:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Featured articles are decided on the quality of the article only. The quality of the subject is irrelevant provided it meets the notability test Nil Einne 14:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia doesn't discriminate on FAs. --Howard the Duck 15:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, are you honestly calling "Donkey Kong" a "cult video game"? It's one of the best known and most influential titles of its generation, helped establish Nintendo of America, brought about a lawsuit with Universal over King Kong, introduced both the characters Donkey Kong and Mario who would be in an endless amount of games, the first game designed by the legendary Shigeru Miyamoto and has been released on over a dozen platforms. It's hardly an obscure topic. -Halo 18:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Reading FAQ, I realized I am not alone to complain on Main Page FA selection process. I am not sure to carry on this discussion here or is there already user forum discussing it somewhere else? Though I see question well described in FAQ, I do not see a good answer to it. One reply most common I encounters over Wikipedia is if one wants to see/object quality of an article, one should contribute himself/herself. This reply implies that people want to read articles of their expertise only. This is not correct assumption. People want to see articles that are worth spending time to read them irrespective of their expertise. Second reply for above question came was FA status does not account for subject matter. This would have ideally resulted in random selection of subject, which doesn't seems to be happening as subject is not random (or at least doesn't seem to me). Let me put my question in this way. Is it OK to show an article over main page after second or third day of its display on main page? If no, then why it is happening for the subject of article? It appears to me that current selection process is not adequate and should be improved which can encompass variety in subjects. pruthvi 21:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what I love about these discussions? Someone comes on, they complain about a topic that they dont like, and then they claim that other people are stopping topics they don't like from appearing on the main page. And yet somehow, they don't see the inherent flaw in that arguement.Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 21:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "Is it OK to show an article over main page after second or third day of its display on main page?"  Featured Articles rotate every 24 hours. News items as they happen.--APL 23:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter - articles are typically promoted to featured status weeks or months (or years) before appearing on the main page. Raul654 00:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should toss up another Banksia FA. Those are the least controversial main page articles possible.-Wafulz 03:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As was said before; FAs aren't just chosen by a random selection from all  articles on Wikipedia. There is really nothing to "discuss;" the main page FA is just chosen from the group of FAs, if a  large percentage of FAs are of "pop culture" topics, then a large percentage of main page FAs will be pop culture. "One reply most common I encounters over Wikipedia is if one wants to see/object quality of an article, one should contribute himself/herself. This reply implies that people want to read articles of their expertise only. This is not correct assumption." No, this means that people aren't going to do things to create equilibrium in FA topics because some other people think it should be done (unless they are properly compensated, see my post in the above section), they will contribute how they want. The reply means that if you want to see more FAs of a certain topic that you should do the work. Mr.Z-man 03:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selection of Featured Article for Main Page 

message: Why has there been so much stuff regarding Nazism and the Holocaust on the main page recently?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.67.144 (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Random clumping. By random chance, articles on a subject will appear at close to the same time on the Main Page sometimes. Our FA director and de facto FP director try to cut down on this, but it still happens from time to time. —Verrai 04:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In the first ten months of 2007, we've had exactly one featured article related to Naziism (Night of the long Knives). We've also had two more that mentioned it in passing (Hovhannes Bagramyan, Soviet General, and Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)). One daily FA in over 300 isn't exactly huge. Raul654 18:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazism/Holocaust 

message: Is the article featured on the main page chosen at random?  It seems kind of fishy that Truthiness has a place of honour today when Stephen Colbert has just released a new book.  ... discospinster talk 12:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word was chosen for today, 17th October, because the first use of the word was on the inaugural episode of the Colbert Report, which aired on the 17th October 2005. Laïka 13:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People can request that a featured article be placed on the main page on a certin date, but it is never hopefuly done for promotional reasons. ffm 20:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought the better coincidence was that it was the FA the day that he announced his candidacy for 2008 US Presidential elections. Evil Monkey - Hello 09:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heaven forbid we add any more bureaucracy, and forgive me for suggesting this, but maybe we need greater oversight of the FA selection to prevent the appearance of impropriety.  We don't need people questioning the independence and impartiality of Wikipedia.  —Nricardo 10:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can oppose a FA appearing on a given date at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests (if it is specifically requested) or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article (if it is randomly chosen for that day). You'll need a strong rationale, though - most complaints are either that a subject is too trivial/dry/unimportant or that putting a commercial product on the main page implies advertising, and neither is considered a good reason to oppose TFA. Laïka 11:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article determination 

message: Anyone know what's going on with Wikipedia:Main Page? I have my browser set to Main Page/Tomorrow, and that's been moved to Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow. But when I go back from there to Wikipedia:Main Page, and click on history and talk, I still get the Talk:Main Page and 'Main Page' history. What's going on? From what I can tell Wikipedia:Main Page has the tabs pointing at Main Page. Does that sound right? Carcharoth 15:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, here we go. The subpage got moved. Still feels strange and inconsistent when the Main Page is still in article space. Carcharoth 15:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the arguments for keeping MP as MP don't hold up for the tomorrow page. Other pages like Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors and Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives (and all the alternatives) are also in the WP name space. Arguably consistency is irrelevant in this case since MP/T is a completely different beast from MP (although I personally still think MP shouldn't be here). BTW, I'm pretty sure that WP:MP has been transparently redirecting to MP for quite a long while Nil Einne 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Thanks. Is there any way to find out when the transparent redirection took place? I tried to look up the history, and found this, but I don't know where to look to find the "transparent" bit you refer to. Carcharoth 17:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry that statement was slightly inaccurate. It's been redirected to the MP for a long while (since 2005 from the history). The redirect is transparent by virtue of the MP design (try User:Nil Einne/Sandbox). I'm not sure precisely what it is but I've seemed it referred to numerous times before, I believe either as a javascript or CSS hack, the archives might help Nil Einne 09:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the same hack that removes "Main Page" from the beginning of the page. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 23:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Main Page 

message: The Olaudah Equiano page is blank, I assume it's vandalism. I can't fix it myself I'm too new... so that needs to be fixed. Anyway, is there a place to report vandalism?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.149.14 (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can revert vandalism, even if you're not logged in, unless the page in question is semi-protected—see Help:Reverting for instructions. It is also useful to warn editors who have made unconstructive edits; this is usually done with standardized templates. If an editor continues to behave inappropriately after being warned several times, they may be reported to administrators here. An admin may then choose to block the user, warn them further/try to engage them in discussion, or do something else :) (whatever is most appropriate). As for the Olaudah Equiano page, a recent edit (apparently in good faith) removed a closing "hidden comment" tag. It's now fixed. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to report vandalism? 

message: I'm a serious Pirates of the Caribbean addict, as you can probably tell. I was wondering, if we'd like to make a request for the "featured article" can we do so? If so, I'd like Jack Sparrow to be the main article. BlackPearl14  —Preceding comment was added at 01:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Featured articles need to meet the criteria outlined here; when they do, you may nominate them here here. No one is going to write an article for you - be bold and do it yourself. Picaroon (t) 01:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eh hang on, people will write articles for you, if you request it. But its better to do it yourself. 132.239.90.236 15:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No they won't. Watch: Please write me an article about granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptors. See, nobody has written it – Gurch 16:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, yes they have: Granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They spelt it wrong – Gurch 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also that entire article consists of the text "The granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor is a receptor for granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor." That tells me sod all – Gurch 16:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you didn't specify that the article had to be particularly illuminating :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe they are still doing the research? Carcharoth 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added about 20 characters to it!  (Yay!)  Now can someone help? ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 00:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I found that rather amusing.  Gurch's variation is not a redirect too.  violet/riga (t) 16:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gah! Now you've gone and ruined my essay :( – Gurch 01:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not your essay... oh well. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 23:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is; I wrote it. Whether or not I "own" it, it's my work – Gurch 00:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll write a featured article for you. My current rate starts at US$20 per hour with a US$50 deposit to be paid before I start. I accept checks and money order. Contact me by email if you are interested. Technical and obscure topics may have additional charges. No guarantee can be made for FA completion date. Bribes to the FA director to get the article on the main page not included. Mr.Z-man 17:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're kidding, right? ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 00:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if someone is actually willing to pay that. I could use the extra money. Mr.Z-man 03:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "Technical and obscure topics may have additional charges."  Systemic bias - one can't get rid of it even by bringing money into the equation. <sigh> - BanyanTree 08:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technical and obscure articles require more difficult research. Mr.Z-man 18:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you're still confused about. The only way Jack Sparrow has any chance of being the Today's Featured Article on the Main Page is if it is a Wikipedia:Featured Article. The only way it will become a feature article is is someone such as you improves it until it meets the criteria. Nil Einne 10:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, great, I think i get it now, will do! Thanks! BlackPearl14 23:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not An Error, but a Question 

message: Raikkonen looks pensative on the photo. I think instead a photo of somebody who has just become world champion should convey more happiness. How about this one instead?  --Ben  T/C  19:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestions are best posted at WP:ITN/C. --74.13.131.41 21:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At any rate, thanks for adding "pensative" to my vocabulary :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Champion photo 

message: Hello, I'm sorry if this is not the place to request this. Could the caretakers of this page please add an 'InterWiki' link on the English main page to the Ido language 'Main Page'?  That page may be found at http://io.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontispico   Thank you.  AnFu 18:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ido only has 15000 articles. The cutoff is 25000 which according to this means vi wiki(Vietnamese) should be on the front page. 128.227.50.158 19:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So it is.  Vi added. Thanks, BanyanTree 01:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 128.227.50.158, Thank you for your reply. I was not aware of the cutoff. Sorry to bother you. AnFu 04:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to add InterWiki Link to Ido Main Page 

message: I've edited the lead section of the article at Kiwifruit and suggest the caption be changed accordingly. The final sentence here is a bit lame. Suggested final sentence: Originally known as the "Chinese Gooseberry" or "Melonette", the fruit was renamed for marketing reasons after the country's national symbol due a passing similarity to the small, furry-looking creature. --mikaultalk 00:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggested edits are best posted at WP:ERRORS. --74.13.125.102 17:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lame PoD cation 

message: Please? I know theres an article but I don't know how to get it up there. Tourskin 18:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please make your suggestion at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thank you. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 18:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone get the San Diego fires on the news? 

message: Over at the Village Pump, I have raised the idea of adding a box about the 2008 Summer Olympics to the Main Page next year. I would like to ask all of you to join the discussion and share your thought about this, on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Olympics on the Main Page. AecisBrievenbus 20:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Page suggestion on Village Pump 

message: I was going to ask this at the help desk, but it is not a question about using wikipedia, so I will ask it here. I once was Chipka, but I stopped using Wikipedia for a very long time (it might have been a year or more), Now I want to start up again, but when I tried to log in it would not let me. I am almost positive I have the right passward, so I'm wondering if wikipedia will get rid of an user if he stopes editing for a long time or something. Thanks for any responce.76.189.123.239 22:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:CHU. But they won't simply get rid of User:Chipka; we need to attribute every edit to an editor for GFDL compliance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstood my question, I don't want to change my user name. I'm asking if wikipedia will get rid of a user if he/she does not edit wikipedia for a long time. I have not edited for a year, and when I tried to long in it would not let me. The only other possibility I can think of is if I did not have the right password, but I think I did. Sorry for any confusion. 76.189.123.239 00:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, passwords are not automatically scrambled or anything, nor is access to an account revoked. Maybe ask at WP:VPT, where your question will be seen by people knowledgeable about the MediaWiki software. Picaroon (t) 00:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem logging on 

message: Given the inherent heat that surrounds anything remotely to do with Israel on Wikipedia, I anticipate an increased volume of vandalism on tomorrow's Main Page article. --Dweller 11:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In related news, water found to be wet – Gurch 12:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol. I'm going to bookmark that gem somewhere in my userspace. Perhaps I was predicting that some types of water are wetter than others. --Dweller 12:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well if heavy water is denser than normal water, perhaps its "wetter", since theres more mass of wetness that your touching lol? Tourskin 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I just did.  See my userpage! ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 22:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anticipated vandalism 

message: I get we need to raise funds, but the animated text in the "ad banner" what you don't know about us is incredibly, incredibly distracting. It needs to go. Sdedeo (tips) 22:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I don't know where to go to complain about this but what on earth happened? It needs to stop whatever it is. Paliku 22:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't there be a dismiss option like every time before? -Oreo Priest 22:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree, there needs to be an option to hide this, as there was before. It is highly distracting to have this text scrolling. Ariel♥Gold 22:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've just added "div#siteNotice {display:none}" to my monobook style file. Eugène van der Pijll 22:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That worked, thanks loads Eugène! Ariel♥Gold 23:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Better use the code by GraceNotes, below, if you want to see any future sitenotices, though. His code only turns of this fundraiser box. Eugène van der Pijll 23:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I also can't play the video after a certain point. To whom it may concern, please take down this ill-conceived banner ad. Thanks, JHMM13(Disc) 23:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we get rid of it? Its incredibly distracting. Why do we need ads? A little link is enough. This is pretty much like adware.  
Wikipedia was one of the very few sites where I never needed to use AdBlock+. Until now. I fully understand you pursue a very noble goal, but the kind of advertising method you chose to employ is simply NOT acceptable for any reason whatsoever. Please consider the the fact that annoying visitors is simply not a good way to plea for their help. 24.83.195.130 23:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please bypass your cache (usually Ctrl+F5) to view a temporary dismiss button. GracenotesT § 23:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Evidently it was the decision of the Wikimedia Foundation. Lord Dreamy tm 23:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Did you clear your cache? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 23:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Command-Opt-E on a mac. Also tried quitting and restarting the browswer. :-\ --Bfigura (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you using this, or this? You should put the code:
 div#siteNotice {display:none}
in your monobook.css. Lord Dreamy tm 23:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The marquee code needs to go.  I'm all in favor of contributing to Wikipedia by any means possible, including donations, but this is more likely to annoy people than anything.  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: A bit of a disclaimer about that code: it will hide all future site notices, not just the donation notice now. GracenotesT § 23:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The box at the top is really annoying, and I noticed the lack of a "[dismiss]" button, like always.  Additionally, it's making my computer go even slower when editing.  I can barely even see the edit cursor on my computer.  This should be modified.  166.129.150.188 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it cannot be edited, unless you are a programmer. Lord Dreamy tm 23:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This is now a dismiss link, only as a stopgap solution for complaints. Bypass your cache (usually Ctrl+R) to view it. GracenotesT § 23:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Could someone please tell me where to find the monobook.css file (or equivalent)?  (I'm using Firefox on a W2000 system.) Thanks.  (I wasn't planning to make a donation anytime soon, but that annoying scroll makes it official.)  Thanks, Wanderer57 23:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try User:Wanderer57/monobook.css. --Bfigura (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! That opens a whole new dimension of Wikipedia to me.  I probably won't do any editing for months.  :o)  Wanderer57 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikibake sales? Wanderer57 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What? Lord Dreamy tm 00:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Lord. It was just a joke in answer to the previous comment.  "Wiki" plus "bake sale".  Maybe they don't have bake sales where you are.  Cheers, Wanderer57 06:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would cheerfully contribute the ONLY sure-fire cake recipe I know! Shir-El too 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it is a lot of programming work to make one for every language. Lord Dreamy tm 23:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *In which case, just omit the foreign language statements. I don't like the whole idea anyway, it feels to me as if I'm being pressured to raise funds, which isn't right --Hadseys 23:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really want it changed, you could go to the village pump, and ask there, or poke a programmer, though, they may be a little grouchy. Lord Dreamy tm 23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That page is totally worth a visit just for the image.  Heh. - BanyanTree 22:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  stop the scrolling 

message: *Does anyone else find that the codes above don't work? (I'm assuming they should be in monobook). I'm using Camino (ie, Mac-ized Firefox) on a Mac OS X 10.4. Any help would place me in your eternal debt. --Bfigura (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you clear your cache? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 23:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Command-Opt-E on a mac. Also tried quitting and restarting the browswer. :-\ --Bfigura (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you using this, or this? You should put the code:
 div#siteNotice {display:none}
in your monobook.css. Lord Dreamy tm 23:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The marquee code needs to go.  I'm all in favor of contributing to Wikipedia by any means possible, including donations, but this is more likely to annoy people than anything.  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: A bit of a disclaimer about that code: it will hide all future site notices, not just the donation notice now. GracenotesT § 23:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The box at the top is really annoying, and I noticed the lack of a "[dismiss]" button, like always.  Additionally, it's making my computer go even slower when editing.  I can barely even see the edit cursor on my computer.  This should be modified.  166.129.150.188 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it cannot be edited, unless you are a programmer. Lord Dreamy tm 23:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This is now a dismiss link, only as a stopgap solution for complaints. Bypass your cache (usually Ctrl+R) to view it. GracenotesT § 23:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Could someone please tell me where to find the monobook.css file (or equivalent)?  (I'm using Firefox on a W2000 system.) Thanks.  (I wasn't planning to make a donation anytime soon, but that annoying scroll makes it official.)  Thanks, Wanderer57 23:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try User:Wanderer57/monobook.css. --Bfigura (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! That opens a whole new dimension of Wikipedia to me.  I probably won't do any editing for months.  :o)  Wanderer57 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikibake sales? Wanderer57 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What? Lord Dreamy tm 00:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Lord. It was just a joke in answer to the previous comment.  "Wiki" plus "bake sale".  Maybe they don't have bake sales where you are.  Cheers, Wanderer57 06:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would cheerfully contribute the ONLY sure-fire cake recipe I know! Shir-El too 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Troubleshooting Fix

message: If this is the english wikipedia, why do we have messages from people who donate funds in different languages; surely they should be translated? Is it time for another fundraising event?--Hadseys 23:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is a lot of programming work to make one for every language. Lord Dreamy tm 23:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *In which case, just omit the foreign language statements. I don't like the whole idea anyway, it feels to me as if I'm being pressured to raise funds, which isn't right --Hadseys 23:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really want it changed, you could go to the village pump, and ask there, or poke a programmer, though, they may be a little grouchy. Lord Dreamy tm 23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English wikipedia 

message: Fundraising is unfortunately necessary, but the ugly banner is not.  If we can design a better banner, we can replace it.  Please contribute to Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign.  Dragons flight 05:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That page is totally worth a visit just for the image.  Heh. - BanyanTree 22:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make it better 

message: I think "Wikipedia's sister projects" on the main page should read "Wikipedia's sister projects (the rest of the library)". WAS 4.250 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious?  We're talking about the press room, the very very large reference dictionary database, the Capitol, the free university, and the museum.  The only real library around here is Wikisource! ;-) ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 19:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I am serious. All large libraries have multiple dictionaries, newspapers, administrative offices, univerity text books, image collections, and under-glass museum-like displays. WAS 4.250 23:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the point?  To give it a "cutesy" feel?  That doesn't really seem appropriate for a project of this type, and certainly doesn't seem beneficial... -Elmer Clark 04:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The for-profit Wikia is being sold as "the rest the library" by Jimmy Wales when he sells both Wikia and WikiMedia in his talks. I don't object to his efforts to put food on the table for his daughter, but I would like WikiMedia to act like it had a spine. WAS 4.250 05:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats an interesting position. Not really on topic.. Atropos 05:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the rest of the library" 

message: I think that the header should be changed from "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." to "The free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit." --Coastergeekperson04 00:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this to make it a full opposite of Uncyclopedia? Dreamy § 00:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yeah but Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, or at least I think it should be added. --Coastergeekperson04 02:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, the way it is is fine. Dreamy § 02:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, the current header is designed to match up with the project's strapline. How far would you want to take the change? Even if we changed the English-language strapline to match, there're still 200+ other projects to get through. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But many other languages have a different word for the concept of free content, and are already using it e.g. the Spanish Wikipedia uses gratis instead of libre. We should improve the article free-content first, or link to a different page in Wikipedia: space that explains it. I wouldn't be opposed to changing the strapline too. the wub "?!" 12:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing's going to be changed. Wikipedia is free in every sense of the word. --Agüeybaná 21:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header suggestion 

message: Why have shocking pictures been featured recently on the main page? First there was the one showing the hideously scarred back of a black slave, and now we have one of a pit of Holocaust victims (with one more about to be shot.) These are NOT the kind of images most people want to see in the "cover" of an encyclopedia; I'm not saying they articles, where people would find them only if they're intentionally looking for them. Is this part of some agenda? How are featured images decided on anyway? -Wilfredo Martinez 01:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The order of images is usually determined by the featured picture time frame. The fact that they are "shocking" is just coincidence. Your Grace Lord Sir Dreamy of Buckland tm 01:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: See User talk:Howcheng#POTD for an explaination of the order from the defacto POTD director. Also see Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria for the criteria featured pictures must meet. (Any picture which meets these criteria can be a featured picture after going through the process here Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates) Nil Einne 01:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That they're "shocking" is POV. What you want to see may differ from what others do. And frankly, that's a pretty tame Holocaust image, as Holocaust images go.  --Dweller 13:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally I don't want Wikipedia to reflect a skewed POV. If images were excluded on the basis that they might be considered shocking, then that's not reflecting the world we all live in. Cuddly guinea pigs are great but there's more to the world than fluffy cuteness. MorganaFiolett 15:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *Hi. I knew that, but why don't we include in the "10 things you may not know about Wikipedia" that it isn't censored, since I'd think a lot of newcomers don't know that? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 00:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'cause then there'd be eleven. Macbi 18:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd be 100% behind that. Chubbles 05:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: * Maybe it can be added under one of the existing headings.  BTW, I read the article after commenting. The ease with which a band of bullies brutally took over a supposedly civilized nation, to the point where the judicial system sanctioned murder after-the-fact, is VERY frightening. I'm glad I read it. Shir-El too 21:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No, you don't get it: WP:NOT#CENSORED. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There are some other shocking pictures lurking in the Featured Picture pool that haven't made it to the front page yet. Have a look at :Image:DeadchinesesoldierEdit.jpg and  :Image:V-2victimAntwerp1944.jpg. Do I need to warn you they are shocking? Carcharoth 09:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Come up with a definition of "shocking" that most people accept and take it from there. Bazza 13:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's ironic that a "shocking" image is the best of Wikipedia. These pictures can be way out of context when they are on the main page. But that's the point, isn't it? It gets your attention, and allows you to get the context if you want. That they are out of context can be dangerous. In spite of that, our readers are smart enough to understand that they are going to be faced with unpleasantness from time to time. It's inevitable. Hires an editor 13:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, guinea pigs bite.  More like cute little hamsters, if you really wanted something more harmless. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 14:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, the current criteria for featured images is good. Suppose we accept that we're basically going to censor Wikipedia by by only displaying non-shocking images, which I disagree with. However, you still have what Bazza pointed out- the term shocking is not clearly defined. Some people will find a sketch of a skeleton offensive, others will object to a picture of child labour. In my opinion, not featuring images simply because they display unpleasant truth is censorship. Anyways, this is a wiki. You can participate in the decision making process. Cheers! Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 12:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is essentially already user censored; we submit the content; we nominate the best material to be featured periodically on the main page.  If you feel an image is too shocking for the main page, you have every opportunity to express that before a picture is featured.  But a lot of people must have felt otherwise for a "shocking" picture to make it as far as the main page. 007patrick 22:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You must know different 12-year olds than I do. APL 18:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew these sorts of pictures existed as a 12-year-old, and I saw them, and I was not psychologically wounded by them.  But most of my classmates, who did not read books about the human reproductive system and the inner workings of guns and minds, and who did not reason for themselves about why people were cruel to each other, would be psychologically wounded by these pictures if they were younger.  Their parents really should've explained this to them - I only knew this all because I was gifted enough to have to read novels generally reserved for "older teenagers" at age 8.  But given that Wikipedia is not in the least censored for the other people, this sort of wrangling is useless. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 23:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've started a discussion here. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For User:Oscar Bravo's benefit, I am neither a lawyer nor from Phildelphia. Whether a picture shocks or not is subjective, and it is not for you or anyone else here to decide on another person's behalf. "We all know what's shocking..." — apparently not, otherwise this discussion would not be taking place. My point was to suggest that a definition of unacceptability is needed — which of  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 would "pass" or "fail"? As the archives show, there are lots of excellent pictures in Wikipedia, and it is not surprising that some people find one or two uncomfortable — sometimes even distressing — to view, but I do not think that that is a reason to hide them away. Life's like this, and I'm glad that my children (who are all now past 12) have had access to information like this to see what the world's like in reality, as opposed to the censored comfort of the middle of the last century which I grew up in. I hope that wasn't too  smug. Bazza 13:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's talking about "hiding them away"? I've absolutely no objection to the pictures appearing on pages that relate to them. That's in context and the user has passed a disclaimer page by then. I'm talking about the Main Page - no pre-defined context and no disclaimer. Regarding your list of pictures - the ones with dead or dying people shocked me, didn't they you? BTW, "Philadelphia Lawyer" is an idiom - I wasn't claiming to be psychic :-) --Oscar Bravo 16:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The PoTD pictures all relate to the main page: they're ones which have been voted "excellent pictures" regardless of their content and are shown on the main page because of that, not because they relate to any other content there. And no, none of the ones I picked shocked me to the extent that I would not want to see them on the Main Page (I chose them because I recall most of them stimulating a similar conversation to this one at the time they appeared on the main page). Which is why I made my point: you can only come up with a policy on not showing shocking pictures on the main page if you can get a general concensus on what it means. Also: there is no disclaimer page a user must pass on leaving the main page; there's a link to one at the bottom of every page, but I doubt many people read it before selecting the page they want to visit. Bazza 09:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but there's absolutley no way the community will agree to censor the main page. Our contributors have chosen to allow even the most shocking FAs to be on the front page, and have defended vigorously our right to do so. Wikipedia is not consored; this will not change. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 02:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not censored, for anyone, It's simple - dont look at the pictures. Discussion closed. This is Zanusi 07:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shocking and Unbelievable Images? 

message: :In my opinion, the current criteria for featured images is good. Suppose we accept that we're basically going to censor Wikipedia by by only displaying non-shocking images, which I disagree with. However, you still have what Bazza pointed out- the term shocking is not clearly defined. Some people will find a sketch of a skeleton offensive, others will object to a picture of child labour. In my opinion, not featuring images simply because they display unpleasant truth is censorship. Anyways, this is a wiki. You can participate in the decision making process. Cheers! Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 12:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is essentially already user censored; we submit the content; we nominate the best material to be featured periodically on the main page.  If you feel an image is too shocking for the main page, you have every opportunity to express that before a picture is featured.  But a lot of people must have felt otherwise for a "shocking" picture to make it as far as the main page. 007patrick 22:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You must know different 12-year olds than I do. APL 18:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew these sorts of pictures existed as a 12-year-old, and I saw them, and I was not psychologically wounded by them.  But most of my classmates, who did not read books about the human reproductive system and the inner workings of guns and minds, and who did not reason for themselves about why people were cruel to each other, would be psychologically wounded by these pictures if they were younger.  Their parents really should've explained this to them - I only knew this all because I was gifted enough to have to read novels generally reserved for "older teenagers" at age 8.  But given that Wikipedia is not in the least censored for the other people, this sort of wrangling is useless. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 23:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've started a discussion here. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For User:Oscar Bravo's benefit, I am neither a lawyer nor from Phildelphia. Whether a picture shocks or not is subjective, and it is not for you or anyone else here to decide on another person's behalf. "We all know what's shocking..." — apparently not, otherwise this discussion would not be taking place. My point was to suggest that a definition of unacceptability is needed — which of  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 would "pass" or "fail"? As the archives show, there are lots of excellent pictures in Wikipedia, and it is not surprising that some people find one or two uncomfortable — sometimes even distressing — to view, but I do not think that that is a reason to hide them away. Life's like this, and I'm glad that my children (who are all now past 12) have had access to information like this to see what the world's like in reality, as opposed to the censored comfort of the middle of the last century which I grew up in. I hope that wasn't too  smug. Bazza 13:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's talking about "hiding them away"? I've absolutely no objection to the pictures appearing on pages that relate to them. That's in context and the user has passed a disclaimer page by then. I'm talking about the Main Page - no pre-defined context and no disclaimer. Regarding your list of pictures - the ones with dead or dying people shocked me, didn't they you? BTW, "Philadelphia Lawyer" is an idiom - I wasn't claiming to be psychic :-) --Oscar Bravo 16:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The PoTD pictures all relate to the main page: they're ones which have been voted "excellent pictures" regardless of their content and are shown on the main page because of that, not because they relate to any other content there. And no, none of the ones I picked shocked me to the extent that I would not want to see them on the Main Page (I chose them because I recall most of them stimulating a similar conversation to this one at the time they appeared on the main page). Which is why I made my point: you can only come up with a policy on not showing shocking pictures on the main page if you can get a general concensus on what it means. Also: there is no disclaimer page a user must pass on leaving the main page; there's a link to one at the bottom of every page, but I doubt many people read it before selecting the page they want to visit. Bazza 09:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but there's absolutley no way the community will agree to censor the main page. Our contributors have chosen to allow even the most shocking FAs to be on the front page, and have defended vigorously our right to do so. Wikipedia is not consored; this will not change. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 02:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Edit Break 1

message: The problem with censoring is that once it starts, there's no end to it. So given a choice, I'd rather be occasionally shocked than protected for my own good. Besides, we all have a choice: we can refrain from viewing WP. Shir-El too 01:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored, for anyone, It's simple - dont look at the pictures. Discussion closed. This is Zanusi 07:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Bravo'' Bazza, RyanGerbil10 and  MER-C!

message: ukrainian wiki has got already more than 75 000 articles --Riwnodennyk 09:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So has Volapuk and their entries missing from the 50K and 25K levels too. (Numbers should be 12, 8 and 14.) Time to consider re-drawing the boundaries?--Peter cohen 12:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Really? I've seen discussion on this page about removing some of the low-depth wikipedias, but the discussion always favored keeping them. Was there another discussion somewhere about changing the main page? Was it linked here? If there was no discussion, why was the previous discussion ignored? For the record, I favor linking any wikipedia that has more than the current minimum number of entries. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was some discussion at Template talk:Wikipedialang. I haven't read over all of it, though, so I don't know how much agreement there was. --- RockMFR 17:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  75 000 articles 

message: I can change any content in this page???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.18.79.211 (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, yes. However, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, to see what is allowed. You can change most things at Wikipedia. However, for obvious reasons, you can't edit the main page, and other protected pages. Anyways, welcome to Wikipedia! Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 13:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can change any content in this page??? 

message: 2002 - Ho Chi Minh City ITC Inferno, a fire destroys a luxurious department store with 1500 people shopping. Over 60 people died and over 100 are missing. It is the deadliest disaster in Vietnam during peacetime. 
Why isnt it in on this day?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because people from WP:OTD weren't notified before hand. --Howard the Duck 15:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On this day 

message: That should be an ocean quahog clam. 139.62.127.95 16:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go to WP:ERRORS for faster responses. --Howard the Duck 16:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clam