Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer/Archive 3

message: Please add the following two interwiki links:
 
sv:Wikipedia:Förbehåll för innehåll
vi:Wikipedia:Ph%E1%BB%A7 nh%E1%BA%ADn v%E1%BB%81 n%E1%BB%99i dung
Thanks. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 05:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. jni 09:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki links

message: (I think I saw that this has been proposed and rejected before, but what the hey...)
Whereas:
* Some people, for various reasons, don't want to see images of sex or violence. (For instance, I often browse Wikipedia at school, and I don't want everyone in the classroom to see me looking at a big Autofellatio.jpg vandalism.)
** These same people might not mind seeing text describing the same thing, becase (a) people across the room can't see what you're reading (easily) and (b) images have a greater impact on people - they're more disturbing to the viewer, and much more likely to upset other people in the room, than text would be.
* Proposals have been made to flag images as "sexual" or "violent" or otherwise objectionable, but the topic is so fraught with politics and emotion that any such system will be inherently POV and lead to massive edit wars, and thus has been rightly turned down.
* Turning off images globally is incredibly inconvenient if you browse other sites at the same time. Even in browsers that let you disable images from just wikipedia.org (and I don't think MSIE is one of these), it still presents a number of inconveniences:
** You can't see the nice images in the skin.
** You can't see LaTeX-rendered math, which isn't likely to be that obscene.
** You can't see the tool buttons on the edit form. Etc.
** If you do want to see an image in an article, you have to unblock images. In Firefox, this is just a right-click operation, but it's almost certainly harder in IE and other browsers.
Therefore, I suggest having an option in Preferences that would allow users to disable showing any inline images in pages. (I mean things included from the Image: namespace, not LaTeXified equations, skin images, tool buttons, etc.) The description and a link to the Image: namespace would be shown, and if they wanted to see the image they could click on the link.
* It's still inconvenient and impedes viewing, but far superior to blocking all images, either from all sites or from wikipedia.org.
* Yes, images could still be uploaded over and vandalized. There's a solution to that, too: have an option that would:
** When the link in the article to the Image: namespace is clicked on, go to a page with a thumbnail (max 100px in either dimension, scaled down a minimum of 3x) image.
** The user would then look at the thumbnail. It's easy to tell whether or not it's objectionable this way, but a thumbnail is less likely to be disturbing to the viewer and to other people in the area.
** If the user then clicks on the thumbnail, they see the full-size image.
* Having this option off by default is fine, in case anyone sees having it on by default as censorship.
* This could also help with the (so far hypothetical, I hope) problem of filtering software blocking all of Wikipedia because it might contain naughty pictures.
Comments?
Nickptar 20:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I'd support such a thing. But such a proposal would need to be ran by wikipedia's technical people, as well as policy people, where ever that is Borgs8472 15:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

text: A worthy idea --Temporitron (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Option to disable ALL inline images 

message: Please add to :Category:Wikipedia disclaimers.  Thanks! -- Beland 01:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add category... 

message: I changed the sentence saying that "essentially all" articles are written by non-experts to a statement that "the great majority" are written by non-experts.  The experts are a small minority here, but there are a fair number of them floating around, and some are very active. Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits has two Ph.D.s in mathematics in the top 15, and I suspect that the majority of our math articles are by mathematicians or math grad students.  "Essentially all" in my mind means that there might be a handful of exceptions, not entire broad subject areas of exceptions. Isomorphic 08:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor wording change

message: Please add it:Wikipedia:Disclaimer sui contenuti Snowdog 23:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki

message: How about an option in user prefs that allows text censorship? Those who don't want to see swearing could have it masked or have the page blocked completely, depending on the options. --Adbabypenguin 11:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship option in prefs

message: Please, someone add interwiki to pt:Wikipedia:Aviso de conteúdo. --555pt 12:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: Perhaps it should now read "over a million articles". —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 15:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. I was on my way over here but you beat me. :) —CliffHarris (-T|C-) 02:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many Thousands? 

message: Would you please add the interwiki link for tr: ?
::* :tr:Vikipedi:İçerik sorumluluğu reddi
--Doruk Salancı 15:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  İnterwiki addition request... 

message: We've got:
: Wikipedia contains many thousands of articles on a vast array of topics. A relatively small fraction of these topics are frequently censored by educational, governmental, corporate, parental and other filtering schemes.
On first reading, this makes it sound like governments et al. are actively editing Wikipedia to perform their censorship.  Can someone with write access change the second sentence to
: A relatively small fraction of these articles are on topics which various educational, governmental, or corporate institutions would wish to censor.  Some or all Wikipedia articles may therefore be blocked and unavailable to some readers due to such an institution's automated filtering schemes.
—Steve Summit (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't do anything about it, but I just wanted to say that (a year late though I may be) I support this.  In particular, even if it has an alternative definition in the dictionary, "scheme" tends to imply something illegitimate or malicious in nature, which strikes me as ironically bordering on POV. Caswin 01:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarification 

message: Please add interwiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is:
 sr:Википедија:Одрицање за садржај
Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 09:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki request 

message: The link to Wikipedia:Verifiability needs to be changed to Wikipedia:Attribution.  --Xyzzyplugh 01:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:V is no more

message: I think that there should be clarification on the censorship aspect of Wikipedia. Even though illustrations, pictures, etc. of human organs might be okay, I think that as for private parts, only illustrations should be used. (Wikimachine 19:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: Att is currently proposed policy, not policy.  WP:V link should be put back.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this seems to already be done. CMummert · talk 21:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Att no longer policy 

message: please add interwiki to RU
 ru:Википедия:Содержимое Википедии может вызвать у Вас протест
--One half 3544 18:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: done. CMummert · talk 22:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  interwiki to RU 

message: 
There's been some discussion at the pump (Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive AK#Avoid movement in pages) regarding animations being used in articles. I figured we might want to add something to this disclaimer regarding photosensitive epilepsy and other possible medical conditions triggered by such images. We might as well be better safe than sorry now that we have people complaining about the issue. I suggest the following addition:
"Wikipedia contains images and videos which may trigger epileptic seizures and other medical conditions."
Of course, I am not a lawyer. --- RockMFR 05:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I am not a lawyer either, but this seems appropriate and is highly similar to the post-traumatic stress disorder disclaimer. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 18:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A new policy about this is being proposed at Wikipedia:Involuntary Health Consequences.  Please come and discuss it.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photosensitive epilepsy 

message: Im scared to look at wikipedia again! T.Neo (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  aaaaaahhhh! 

message: :(Darth Vader needed here...! ;-) 
Wikipedia contains obscure information that would not be covered in a conventional encyclopedia.
(added here)
What does that mean? Is it from reliable sources? If yes, the word is misused, Thx. Or, is it WP:OR? — STAR TREK Man [Space, the final frontier...] 21:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's lots of information from reliable sources that is not original research that one would not expect to find in a conventional encyclopedia. A lot of it is "fancruft". Other stuff comes from Wikipedia not being subject to the same space constraints as printed encyclopedias. Martin (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obscure 

message: There is an argument here that images connected to this test must be hidden and a in-article disclaimer added to prevent spoiling the test. Is there a more general application here? In regards to factual material or images that may spoil a test (be it schooling or of this nature? is it already covered? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exams, test and other "unseen" material  

message: Is there a need for :Image:Plot warning.png? GregManninLB (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with it? It was uploaded during the "Great Spoiler Debate" to highlight how ridiculous spoiler warnings had become. I like to use it as an example of pointing out the obvious. .:Alex:. 17:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image:Plot warning.png

message: I see nothing wrong with bringing back the Spoiler Warning as a courtesy to readers. Kingturtle (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  spoiler warnings 

message: If you don't fucking like it, get your bastard ass the hell out of here. I'll be god-damned if I let a bunch of shit-stained commies' bitching fag up my sea of piss. Ziggy Sawdust (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This editor has been blocked indefinitely. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Supposedly he was banned for a sock-puppet and not for the aforementioned statement. (Which b.t.w.: I though was vulgar, but quite accurate of what Wikipedian would like to have... despite the fact that the contrary often happens). --CyclePat (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia isn't fucking censored. 

message: Can I suggest that the current paragraph:
::Wikipedia's coverage of subjects is patchy, based on the whims of its volunteer contributors (in particular, subjects of interest to young technical people are likely, but not certain, to receive heavier coverage than other subjects). Readers ....
is a bit flippant. I suggest instead (taken from WP:BIAS):
::Wikipedia suffers systemic bias that naturally grows from its contributors' demographic groups, manifesting as imbalanced coverage of a subject. Readers .... 
AndrewRT(Talk) 22:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systemic bias 

message:  
Content disclaimer has an NPOV issue. Please consider the following for implementation.
*Please change In any case, Wikipedia is a work in progress, and many articles contain errors, bias, duplication, or simply need tender loving care. to
**Wikipedia is a work in progress which may contains bias, duplication and errors.
*Please change We encourage readers to help us fix these problems. to
**Readers are encouraged to collaboratively work at fixing any of these problems.
*Please change The great majority of articles are written primarily or solely by individuals who are not subject matter experts, and may lack academic or professional credentials in the area. to
**Generally, material is written by individuals with unverified academic, subject matter expertize and/or professional credentials. Readers are advised to read Wikipedia's General Disclaimer
*Please change Wikipedia contains obscure information that would not be covered in a conventional encyclopedia. to
**Wikipedia may contain information not covered in conventional encyclopedias.
*Please change Wikipedia's coverage of subjects is patchy, based on the whims of its volunteer contributors (in particular, subjects of interest to young technical people are likely, but not certain, to receive heavier coverage than other subjects). to
**The coverage of some obscure subjects may sometimes becomes an interest to the technically inclined volunteer contributors at Wikipedia.
*Please consider merging some of the disclaimers and cutting down on other repetition. --CyclePat (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I pointed out above, changes should be proposed at WP:VPR first. --- RockMFR 18:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Issues 

message: The link to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention in this page currently points to a page marked historical.  The link should point to Wikipedia:Cleanup. meshach (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: — Thank you for your note. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pages needing attention 

message: I am referring to the issue of persons from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Australia), whom encounter this problem when viewing articles which may contain audio files as well as images of, persons who have passed away.  This is a culturally sensitive issue which can cause distress, sadness or even offend people within the Aboriginal & TSI cultures and communities.  I propose the change of wording from:
Some articles may contain names, images, artworks or descriptions of events 
that some cultures restrict access to.
to
Some articles may contain names, images, artworks, audio or descriptions of
 people or events that certain cultures require approval to access or restrict altogether.
You are welcome to reword what I put as you wish, its just a general idea.  Thor Malmjursson (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, the issue is that aboriginal men invoke their ancestors at corroboree. Try not to be misleading. It is impossible to fully understand what 55-60,000 years of civilization means for that environment today, suffice to say that it affects more than just viewer sensitivities. I agree with inserting the word 'people', but the sentence could be shortened as well: Articles contain representations of people or events that are protected by some cultures. Ottre 06:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User "may be" instead of "are" and I think you've got an acceptable statement.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, So Ottre and Philosopher, can I suggest a new wording then? How about Articles can contain audio, visual, or written representations of people or events that may be protected by some cultures.? - By the way, Ottre - I wasn't trying to be misleading, how I described it is how I had it explained to me by someone on IRC who is an indigenous Australian by birth.  Thor Malmjursson (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And another slight change - Articles may contain audio, visual, or written representations of people or events which may be protected by some cultures.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. I'm happy with that, Philosopher. Covers it perfectly. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to make minor change to policy wording 

message: The wording about Wikipedia coverage being slanted towards young technical writers is quite dated and hasn't been touched in a very very long time.  I removed that and unified the use of 'subject' and 'topic' in the final paragraph.  +sj + 08:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should read "...content that might be objectionable." Ottre 11:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less subjective wording 

message: I think this policy needs more umph.  Umph as in boom boom, right there, in yo face cracka, what you gonna do bout it holmes?, right up in ya et cet.
Perhaps the bolded summarization should have 'you jackass' appended?  I think this would accomplish the above desirable effect and be a positive contribution to the summary.
Perhaps every other declaratory statement in the full policy should be appended likewise.
And maybe add "we don't care bout your kids.. raise them yourself" to a few similar declaratory policy positions in the full policy?
Something to think about.
--24.29.234.88 (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...Is not censored you jackass 

message: Please add mk:Википедија:Одрекување од одговорност за содржината in the interwiki list, thank you in advance :) Brainmachine (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Skier Dude (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki request 

message: I suggest that the phrase "It should be noted that" could well be deleted from the start of the item about graffiti.  Almost any sentence containing this phrase would benefit from having it removed - if we SHOULD note something, then we might as well just go ahead and NOTE it already instead of offering a philosophical musing on how we ought to.  But although "shoot on sight" would be a reasonable policy regarding "it should be noted that" in general, it should be deleted that phrase especially in this context because it harms the parallelism between the graffiti item and other items.  Most of the things on the list are declarative statements about Wikipedia.  Wikipedia contains this, Wikipedia contains that, Wikipedia follows such-and-such policy... but then "it should be noted that" Wikipedia something else.  No reason for that entry to be special as the only one that "should be noted" - what are we saying, that the others shouldn't be noted?  It'd be stronger and clearer if it were just a declarative sentence about Wikipedia like most of the others. 216.75.189.161 (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just note it 

message: Personally, I think we can cater to both those who are worried about freedom of expression and those who are worried about accidental exposure to objectionable material by moving material deemed objectionable by the community on a case-by-case basis to a controversy section near the end of the page with a link near the top to that section or its relevant subsection. 
In particular, I raise the Virgin Killers album page, which for showing the original cover art at the top of the page lead to UK censors banning Wikipedia for half a week. To me it feels that that page could have served our audience by displaying the 'current' alternative cover image of the band members at the top and in the table of contents near the top show a section link entitled "cover image controversy" or a subsection link entitled "original cover image" under the "controversy" section. 
Either way, viewers of the objectionable material would have had to click on a link with the word, "controversy", scrolled past a section header with the word, "controversy", followed an appropriately titled link from another internal page, or followed a link from an external page, which we would not have been liable for. We would have exerted a reasonable effort and ended the premise that a viewer could have accidentally access the image, because they had to ignore the word, "controversy" on their way to it, which gave them the option of turning away if they were truly worried about the effect of a controversial immage.
Similarly, people worried about freedom of expression and repressing items of encyclopaedic notability would know that anyone researching that controversy could link to it from the TOC at the top of the page, minimally slowing them down and in cases where the material was not at the top of the page, speeding them up.
I am not in favour of splashing "spoiler alert" in a distracting way over all possibly objectionable material like IMDB tends to, which degrades readability, or making unavailable material that fits our rules and those of pertinent legal bodies. I do however think a thin layer of protection for those who are likely to find certain images, spoilers, etc. objectionable will not harm Wikipedia. I think that, like ratings advice, it will allow people living under strict censorship (from family, school, church, organization, work, or government) to have access to the knowledge of Wikipedia, spreading the population with access rather than having it simply blocked to the unfortunate. :)--Thecurran (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your concern.  This talk page is just for discussing the disclaimer itself - if you would like to discuss the actual policies and guidelines regarding censorship, I recommend you do so at the talk page of WP:UNCENSORED or at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).  For examples of similar proposals which have been rejected by the community, see WP:PEREN#Content.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it against our ethos to move the objectionable to controversy sections? 

message: It would be useful to note that there is pornographic content. It might also be a good idea to make it more clear that some of the content is illegal for minors to view. Don't you think? Parthian Scribe 08:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: WP:CODI → Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Add to page? -Stevertigo 02:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any harm in adding it. Also, I included DISC and DISCL.   Icestorm815 • Talk 05:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcut 

message: Please add hi:विकिपीडिया:सामग्री अस्वीकरण to interwiki list. Thanks :) --Priyanka (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And what is this comment in reference to?  This is a page for discussing changes to Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, perhaps you put your comment on the wrong talk page? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

text: —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki Request  

message: While disclaimers, none of these disclaimers are written as legal disclaimers, so could a phrase be added to the disclaimers, primarily the content one, stating:
"By viewing Wikipedia, you assume all local legal responsibilities associated with said viewing.  Furthermore, you acknowledge that neither Wikipedia, the MikiMedia Foundation, nor any individual user of Wikipedia is responsible for the content of Wikipedia, and you further agree to not find fault with Wikipedia, the WikiMedia Foundation, or any individual user of Wikipedia for content that is incorrect or offensive in nature."
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure the Wikimedia Foundation has one to check that legal disclaimer for correctness.  That said, I'm pretty sure that that covers all our butts in case something comes down the pipe.
-- Nutarama (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please discuss this (here or somewhere more visible) to see whether this additional disclaimer to appropriate and required? I'm not a lawyer either ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delicate 

message: To address one of the valid points made in WP:Hardcore images, I propose that:
*"For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy."
Be amended to say:
*"Some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, human anatomy, or sexual acts."
Gigs (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Gigs (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request: mention sexuality explicitly 

message: Why and is pornography allowed on wikipedia?
this can be viewed by any child at any time.
i see no mention of the word pornography in this disclaimer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overseer19XX (talk • contribs) 22:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Covered under "some articles contain graphical depictions of [...] human anatomy, or sexual acts". Wikipedia contains articles about pornography, but does not aim to itself be pornographic. See also: WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:COMPREHENSIVE. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pornography  

message: 95% of this town follow Qadiria thareeqa.
Psiubu (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The  template should be used on the talk page of the fully-protected page in question (the town's page, I presume). There is no content on this page that matches your request above. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Psiubu, 24 April 2011 

message: ===Current Bullet Point===
*Since Wikipedia is open to contributions from the public, there may at any time be graffiti present on Wikipedia. 
===Suggested Bullet Point===
*Since Wikipedia is open to contributions from the public, there may at any time be graffitipresent on Wikipedia. This most commonly takes the form of abusive or silly text but may also be audio visual in nature, including offensive images.
Egg Centric 12:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done, because no reasoning provided, nor does it seem this was discussed anywhere. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "reasoning" is obvious. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Egg Centric, 23 July 2011 

message: *Since Wikipedia is open to contributions from the public, there may at any time be graffitipresent on Wikipedia. This most commonly takes the form of abusive or silly text but may also be audio visual in nature, including offensive images.
Egg Centric 12:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done, because no reasoning provided, nor does it seem this was discussed anywhere. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "reasoning" is obvious. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Bullet Point

message: this is mohammed liaqhath ali from warangal of Andhra Pradesh, INDIA  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.133.61.130 (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  liaqhath ali 

message: This sentence is a little choppy. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "there may at any time be graffiti present on Wikipedia" 

message: Really guys? It's like yelling "duck" to your friend after they've been decapitated. Why is the only link to this at the bottom of the articles it's meant to warn users about? 143.92.1.33 (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  At bottom of page? 

message: I see this page as a legal document; in any case a very serious text. As such, it is not supposed to contain vague or sloppy language. Now, what the heck is "grafitti" in this context? I suggest at least to add a wikilink: 
:"Since Wikipedia is open to contributions from the public, there may at any time be graffiti present on Wikipedia." 
Please notice that wikilinking only "grafitti" may be confusing: most people know the word and will not be motivated to click for explanation. 
Of course, I would prefer to see the term "vandalized" in this text explicitely, but I know that in order not to feed trolls, some of it is called politely "tests" or "jokes"... Staszek Lem (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graffiti revisited 

message: Please change "Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages" → "Wikipedia:Merging".  simply redirects to Wikipedia:Merging, a page that does not discuss moving pages.  Moving (renaming) pages does not address duplication issues. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Note that there's no reason per policy to fix links just to avoid redirects, but I thought your point about moves not addressing duplication was a fair one, so I have fulfilled the request. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request to bypass redirect 

message: Please change Laws in the United states and the state of Florida To Laws in the United states and the state of Virginia.  The servers have moved.Tazerdadog (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: Such things have legal implications. I would prefer that a Foundation member request this; or preferably, make the edit themselves. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Should this be brought to their attention?Tazerdadog (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: , and . Waiting for Maggie. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, , so  Done, see . --Redrose64 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!  Tazerdadog (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Server Location 

message: THE ORIGINAL WEINERMOBILE WAS DESIGNES BY INDUSTRIAL DESIGNER BROOK STEVENS IN THE LATE 40'S APPROX. 1948 AND HIS WORK WAS "COPIED" BY HARRY BRADLEY.  GIVE THE CRECIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE. LARRY KRAMER
74.139.76.254 (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page :Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 6 March 2013 

message: This fixes the nonsensical listing of "simply need TLC" as something "many articles contain". Thanks! Ignatzmice•talk 18:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 8/10/13 for grammar fix 

message: At Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 109#Porn Websites On Wikipedia there was some discussion about whether links to pornographic websites are acceptable on Wikipedia (the consensus was that in some circumstances they are). I noted however that there was no mention of external links in any of our disclaimers, which strikes me as odd as its a disclaimer that almost every commercial website has, and so I wonder whether we ought to add something? I thinking something to the effect that we have no control over the content of external sites, and that although they should be relevant to the article that links to them we cannot guarantee this due to e.g. vandalism and that the content may have changed since it was added to the article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links