Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 16

message: Look, I have no opinion on this, but the edit warring has to stop.  Please discuss proposed changes to the infobox's "Author:" attribute here before making them. =David(talk)(contribs) 01:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to discuss it. Jimbo told me on the IRC channel that he founded wikipedia himself.--Trulexicon 04:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not verifiable ;-). --Stephan Schulz 04:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it is: Jimbo told me. :) Richard001 08:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Larry Sanger]]?  No Larry Sanger? 

message: why?Mariofan1000 20:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Wikipedia itself, just like, say, Encyclopedia Brittanica, is a subject worthy of an article, of discussion. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This kind of reasoning is just plein wrong, Brittanica's history spans more than 100 years, Wikipedia is very new and won't be comprably old enough in our lifetime presuming it'll continue. Going with this logic if a new watch brand appears today, then it deserves an article just because there is an entry for Rolex.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.101.131 (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Encyclopedia Brittanica has an article on Wikipedia as well. It also has one on wikis, Jimmy Wales, and Stephen Colbert, and itself. While we should avoid self-references, going out of our way to do so is also kind of a self-reference. Richard001 08:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article about wikipedia on wikipedia????? 

message: After all, in a sense, wikipedia is talking about itself. Therefore it is possible that the wiki is conscious, and should be construed as an "I". Xhin Give Back Our Membership! 03:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly are you saying? It doesn't really make sense. If you are suggesting that Wikipedia should be referred to in this article in the first person, then you are being ridiculous. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This article is like any other article on here, and so it should be written like other articles, and should not be treated any differently. Sebi [talk] 06:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also avoid self references. Richard001 08:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be written in first person. 

message: What was the first article created on Wikipedia. I have had a look around but I have only found editors/articles from July 01.134.148.5.119 09:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd guess a tie between all the articles imported from Nupedia?  See Wikipedia:Nupedia and Wikipedia for a list, including weird things like Donegal fiddle tradition which I believe was originally written by Larry Sanger. 68.175.102.171 04:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:UuU for the oldest surviving edit on wikipedia. ffm 20:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumb Question 

message: The audio file really needs to be updated. Any volunteers?Randomblue 18:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have added to the to do list. Suggest we wait until this article is in really good shape, possibly FA again (one day?). Richard001 08:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio file 

message: I've noticed recently that google has started giving brief summaries of the contents of wiki pages instead of the first sentence or two from the page itself as is usually the case with google search results. 
As an example, searching for "Arabic Language" the search result for wiki is 
"Wikipedia article, with links to other articles on Modern Standard and Classical Arabic, as well as other varieties of the language."
Is this a google thing or is it a wikipedia thing? TheStripèdOne 16:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're all in cahoots, mate.59.167.86.232 17:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Search Results 

message: Wikipedia fork redirects to this article.
I think the article should say something more about the over 500 Wikipedia forks.
Should we use Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks as a reference for that number, or is that too self-referential?
--75.48.165.135 15:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to redirect to Wikipedia:Sites using MediaWiki, that might be a good idea to make it point to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks but that's would be a cross namespace redirect. -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 15:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia fork 

message: I am removing the following statement as it has been tagged as needing a source for several months:
*Because of the nature of the "copyleft" license Wikipedia uses, Wikipedia's content has been mirrored and forked by many sites including database dumps.
If anyone can add a source for this, feel free to re-add it. —Angr 19:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:MIRROR. ffm 13:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced statement removed 

message: Many language versions of Wikipedia are free content, while others, such as the English version, include non-free material.--71.234.97.27 21:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, the English Wikipedia includes album covers on articles. Other WP, like the French one, don't do that. You can read more at WP:NFC. -- lucasbfr talk 21:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text should probably be more specific here. We're talking about media, right? Richard001 08:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the non-free material? 

message: Was discussing irony of criticism against wikipedia for lack of proper citations (had a cite on that XD) went to visit the site listed and was unable to access the page.  Someone should look into this, it managed to get wikipedia nearly banned here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphoray (talk • contribs) 19:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Links 

message: Wikipedia should let people upload music to certain sites that the music would aply to. Then People could listen to music while there reading.
:The music would have to be freely licensed, though. —Angr 14:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  hehehe... How would this music "apply"? A subtle orchestral score for an article on a monument?Macau DV 10:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea 

message: Following is too petty for article (a minor politican raising an unimportant question, of minimal relevance to this article) so I think it should be removed:
On 29 September, 2007, Italian politician Franco Grillini raised a parliamentary question with the Minister of Cultural Resources and Activities about the necessity of freedom of panorama. He said that the lack of such freedom forced Wikipedia, "the seventh most consulted website" to forbid all images of modern Italian buildings and art, and claimed this was hugely damaging to tourist revenues.Thanks.--82.148.54.193 20:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree about the importance of this event. To have Wikipedia mentioned on the floor of the Italian parliament is surely interesting to anyone concerned about Wikipedia's notability. I could not locate the reference provided, to 'Italy Global Nation', a site where 'Wikipedia' was not found, so I replaced it with a citation to the same parliamentary speech at Franco Grillini's web site.  EdJohnston 01:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the future use . ffm 16:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article locked, can someone do an edit by proxy please? 

message: Is it just me, or did the wikipedia globe (right above teh search bar) change?
76.109.11.127 02:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not within the last few years. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos. ffm 16:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikipedia globe 

message: Is it just me or exist two version of the english wikip edia?
Exist it an american wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordbecket (talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two English-language Wikipedias, but they're not an American English version and a British English version. There's the "regular" English Wikipedia (which accepts both British and American usage, as long as an article is internally consistent), and there's the Simple English Wikipedia, designed for readers with a limited vocabulary. —Angr 15:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what're the rules for the various spellings?
Dsmccohen 09:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ENGVAR and WP:SPELLING. —Angr 18:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British and american wikipedia? 

message: I am finding that majority of articles ( for ex MoveOn.org articles, Al Gore article ) have a clear liberal slant - yet, I could not find a single page with a conservative slant. 
Which leads me to wonder if Wikipedia is primarily a medium for expressing liberal views? - Not that there is anything wrong with it ;) TwakTwik 02:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of editors who are not from the United States. I would guess more than half of them. A.Z. 02:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting that you should note some articles having a slant one way or the other; Wikipedia has a strict neutral point of view policy. I'll go check out the ones that you mentioned. Were there any others that you saw having a particular slant one way or another? GlassCobra 02:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not liberal, or conservative. It's democratic.. which means mob rule. No matter how blind and idiotic the majority is, the majority determines what stays on the page. So Wikipedia is a good research tool for tools of all kinds, be they left fascists or right fascists. I mean, the Nazi's had lots of peers to review the validity of their eugenics literature. Real bona fide scientific consensus going on in 1930's Germany.59.167.86.232 17:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Wikipedia primarily run by editors with liberal views? 

message: There's an incidence of the word "a" before a vowel (the word "internet") in the final sentence of the fourth paragraph.  I'd fix it, but the article is locked, and I'm a wikinoob, alas.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.48.35 (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected; thanks for pointing it out! —Angr 05:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar Problem 

message: This is just vanity and self-worship. It's even classed as a "good article"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.13.209 (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Barely worth replying to - see by comments #article about wikipedia on wikipedia?????. If you have problems with the GA status, seek a review. Richard001 08:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanity 

message: Is Wikipedia under the USA law since the Wikimedia (and main server) locates in the USA? Thanks. --Manop - TH 05:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes – Gurch 15:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal issue of Wikipedia 

message: The word "over" is repeated twice in only two sentences, one succeeding the other.
As of September 2007, Wikipedia had approximately 8.29 million articles in 253 languages, comprising a combined total of over 1.41 billion words for all Wikipedias. The English Wikipedia edition passed the 2,000,000 article mark on September 9, 2007, and as of October 14, 2007 it had over 2,047,000 articles consisting of over 890,000,000 words.
Randomblue 22:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since English Wikipedia != Wikipedia, this sounds okay to me. -- Taku 23:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point was stylistic rather than factual. Perhaps the second "over" could be changed to "more than" to provide a little lexical variation. —Angr 05:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition? 

message: There used to be a section named "history" on this article but it has been vandalized by TheMarioManiac on May 14th, 2007 and it was badly reverted (deletion actually, but the person probably didn't know it was a real section before being vandalized). Then a new similar section ("Founding") has been written on July 6th, 2007. I think this section "history" is really worthy, so can anybody merge it with the new section "founding"? 16@r 22:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone reverts badly use the template Un-reverting (unless they are experienced editors, in which case you shouldn't template them (if you do you're likely to get warned yourself ;) Richard001 08:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History/founding 

message: great site  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.21.117.152 (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We try. :) GlassCobra 17:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we have succeeded so far, haven't we? -- Taku 23:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yet from Google's POV if u searched "fuckedpedia", u'll be asked on top of the results "Did you mean Wikipedia". Trypanopediac 14:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  you are great 

message: The article presents the number of wikipedia's words.  Is it possible to inform us and the number of its UNIQUE words?
-- Kaseluris, Nikos 06:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not in this article. It would be about as relevant as listing how many 10+ letter words there were. Richard001 20:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request: Number of UNIQUE words 

message: Could someone please unlock this page?  I would like to add some sarcastic criticism of Wikipedia along with some off-colour sexual humour.  Thank you.  --24.235.231.206 22:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there's room on Uncyclopedia for that. —Angr 00:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlock 

message: Wasn't there a separate article on Wikipedians - saying some welcome new members, others do this or that, etc. Now I can't find it! Expected to see on the See also but not there. Any ideas what the article title is I'm looking for? DionysosProteus 16:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell from looking at the history, there's never been an article on Wikipedians. Wikipedians has always been either a redirect here or to Wikipedia:Wikipedians, which is outside article space. —Angr 17:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it's in Wikipedia: namespace, not article space. It's a page intended for editors, not for readers. —Angr 04:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have added a dab, though is it worth it? Richard001 08:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grrr! 

message: Though it might be true indeed that Wikipedia has been infiltrated by left-wing vandals, the citing of Newsmax as a source is just sloppy.  Newsmax is known to be reactionary and sensational.  I read the article referred to and most of it reads like an editorial, as the article does a poor job indeed of making the case that liberals control the Wikipedia domain.  I removed citation 69 as well as the sentence preceding it.
For your enjoyment, the final sentence of the article, "Most people accept information that is at their fingertips and don't take the time to check original sources. Thus the information superhighway offers everyone access to the same often inaccurate and biased information."
Asaspades9 00:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsmax? 

message: Looking through the article about wikipedia I think there are some neutrality issues particularly regarding the section about reliability and bias. It seems as though it has under represented the argument that these topics are valid and over represented the infalliability of wikipedia. It also is troubling that in outlining the argument the definitions used are ones that users in the wikipedia community created (hyperlinked)Matt1741 15:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I am curious to know why Wikipedia still has no "did you mean ____?" links when I search for something and accidently spell it wrong. Why is this? Has it not yet been suggested that Wikipedia include such a tool? Heretic 02:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have Wikipedia:Redirect and Wikipedia:Disambiguation, though if you mean the sort Google search has, then no. It could probably be an improvement; the whole search function here could learn a lot from Google too, though you can search Wikipedia with Google if you want. This isn't really the place for such suggestions though, you'd best take it to the village pump or somewhere like that. Richard001 06:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling Checks 

message: I don't like the way the three separate Wikipedia related templates still exclude some of the major articles - reliability, criticism and in culture are all left out. Is there any way we could fit them in somewhere, or rearrange the templates somehow to do so? We could even merge the lot into one super template, perhaps 'Wikipedia and related projects' or 'Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation'. The problem there is that all the unrelated stuff is included if you just want something like the small Wikimedia projects version on e.g. Wikiquote. I don't know of any way to use only part of a template if desired, though it might be possible... Richard001 06:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: Take your pick: Wikipedia community or Wikipedia Community. To which should they redirect? Richard001 06:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia community 

message: We need an image of Jimbo here - the article is incomplete without it. Take your pick. Any suggestions? We used to have :Image:Jimbo-wales---fosdem-2005.jpg IIRC, which I suggested be cropped, though that may have been another article. How about :Image:Jimmy-wales-frankfurt2005-alih01.jpg or :Image:Jimbo_Wales_in_France_cropped.jpg? There are two others like the former as well. Richard001 07:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to be meek and add one to the history section. Richard001 05:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Rules say that a person or an entity should refrain from writing an article about oneself and leave this task for someone else to ensure objectivity and neutrality, so how could the wikipedia community describe their project by themselves, they should leave that for other encyclopedias like Britannica or whatever rather than this utter selfishness.
Tyranopediac 18:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of us gets paid, so there's no conflict of interest. Anyway, this has been brought up hundreds of times before, and everyone agrees we're capable of writing neutrally about Wikipedia. —Angr 19:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does that mean a non-profit organization's article could be contributed to by people who run the organization in question?! Is the elimination of financial motives of inobjectivity enough for ensuring neutrality?! If so, then hopefully Wikipedia will stick to one standard when other non-profit entities contribute about themselves. Tyranopediac 21:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only a problem when the article in question suffers from a lack of neutrality. If you think that this article is not neutral, please indicate the parts that need attention. Sijo Ripa 21:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An imbalanced coverage of a topic deosn't necessarily need to come in the form of presenting one or more point by biased POV(s). It could also be by overlooking or censoring a valid criticism. For example in the process of building an article from scratch by multiple editors on Wikipedia, there is a tendency to build an incoherent text because of bits of info being added separately by different editors. If I go now to the article page (of this topic: Wikipedia) and write such criticism as a characteristic of wiki-built articles, my comment would be quickly removed by the INFLUENTIAL people here. Tyranopediac 13:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Non-profit organizations often--even usually--have paid workers. That includes the Wikimedia Foundation. But Wikipedia's editors are not paid employees of the Wikimedia Foundation. —Angr 21:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia editors are naturally enthusiastic about their project so their views on it are automatically biased. Tyranopediac 10:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: See my response above: In short, not having an article on ourself would be a self reference and Britannica has an article on their 15th edition. Please have a skim through the talk page before you ask - this question has been raised twice above. Richard001 05:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is in breach of basic Wikipedia rules 

message: I don't watch this article, but I've seen the question above raised three times on this talk page alone, and we have 16 archives. Are there any others besides this that get frequently asked? I note that a lot of busy pages are using FAQs, such as evolution, intelligent design etc. Perhaps this is something we could consider. Richard001 05:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article have an FAQ? 

message: Sorry for all these discussions, but I feel we need better information on the number of Wikipedians too. Often quoted is the number of editors, but this statistic is vague and sure to be misleading. I'd like to know how many active contributors we have, and more statistics on this in general. Does anyone know if/where such information could be found? It would also be possible to ascertain a reasonable estimate based on a sampling of existing users accounts, looking at what fraction are currently active. Richard001 09:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I find annoying is people creating accounts and making between 0-2 edits usually on one day. Rick-LevittContribs 12:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of editors 

message: Just reading reliability of Wikipedia at the moment and I think 'quality of Wikipedia' might be a slightly better reflection of its scope. Comments welcome at Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#Article name. Richard001 10:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Richard, are you the official spokesman for Wikipedia or something? I mean you are commenting on every single issue brought up here! Tyranopediac 10:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability daughter 

message: Seriously,
I think that Wikipedia has a few of it's facts wrong! By the way- did Google write an article about how good it was?
No!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.240.47 (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Google an Encyclopedia? No. Does this article talk about how good Wikipedia is? No. —Angr 06:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In a way it does, it implies self-notability and self-importance. The truth is Wikipedia is important but it shouldn't "say" that about itself. Other sites present themselves to the public through an "About" page, and if it is necessary to praise themselves they quote what newspapers, books ... etc written by others say about them. Tyranopediac 15:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article fully complies with our neutral point of view policy. It includes both positive and negative opinions that other, independent sources have written. Wikipedia is a notable topic, beyond a doubt, as it's one of the most highly-trafficked websites in the world. GlassCobra 16:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is magnificent ©™® I mean I would rather wake up tomorrow and there would be no sun than there would be no Wikipedia.. The Earth revolves around Wikipedia not around the sun anymore!!! And it's absolutely necessary that Wikipedia reminds everybody of this fact by such an article, an "About" page is just not enough. Tyranopediac 20:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self Obsess Much? 

message: How does one edit a page on Wikipedia? I know it must be simple, but I simply can't get my arms around it.--Eventadmitbud 03:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same was you edited this talk page: click the 'edit' tab at the top.  Check out Wikipedia:How to edit a page for more specifics.  You may be having trouble because your account is very new; some articles (like Wikipedia) are semi-protected so that they can only be edited by established users.  You may also want to look at Wikipedia:Questions to find out where to ask any other questions you have: this talk page is really for discussing the Wikipedia article, not Wikipedia itself.  At any rate, welcome! -- Vary | Talk 03:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If you can talk to us, you can edit wiki articles -- every page, including the talk pages, are edited in the same way. Gscshoyru 03:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaah. So simple. I understand now.--Eventadmitbud 03:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I edit a page on Wikipedia? 

message: If Wikipedia wants everything to be free and GFDL, then why is its own logo not even GFDL? It seems very hypocritical.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Me Smiling Incorporated (talk • contribs) 11:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia project requires the creation of a large body of open, free content. Sometimes, helping create the largest possible amount of open, free content requires the creation of small amounts of non-free content. The Wikipedia logo is one example, where copyright and trademark protection is being used to protect the Wikipedia brand. For another example of how strategic use of non-free content can be used to help the creation of free content, you might want to take a look at the copyright of the GFDL itself. -- Karada 11:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irony 

message: There was a generally accepted policy page entitled WP:Idiots Can Edit but I can't find it anymore! Is there any change in this respect? Is Wikipedia no longer the free encyclopedia that everyone can edit?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.101.131 (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idiots Can Edit 

message: Why can't I edit this page? Chrissie
:Because it's semi-protected so only registered users who have been here a few days can edit it. Helps keep the vandalism down to a dull roar. —Angr 18:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question 

message: Could somebody please add an interwiki to zea:Wikipedia? Thanks :) --Ooswesthoesbes 17:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done :) -- Arwel (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Why is it that on the English Main Page, the Wikipedia Globe Logo features a backwards "Ñ" on one of the puzzle pieces, yet on the multi-lingual page that links to every Wikipedia, the И does not have a tilde? --Ye Olde Luke 00:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but what that letter is is the Cyrillic letter Й. —Angr 05:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globe Logo 

message: Hi. Why there is no Larry Sanger's picture in the article? He is a co-founder, he gave the name to the project, he gave the wiki idea. There is a Jimbo picture. Is this a NPOV? --NeutralPoint 19:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to add it. Thanks, --Tom 19:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For one thing there's little room as it is, and for another he has long left the project. It would be more accurate to call him a semi-cofounder, or something else in between what he and Jimbo each claim. Also, the picture has only been added very recently. Richard001 04:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you suggesting? If we remove Sanger's picture, then we should definitely remove Wales. Neither picture helps in understanding the history of Wikipedia. Finally, whether someone is still at a project has absolutely nothing to do with whether they helped found it. That's what a co-founder is. It doesn't call him a co-manager or anything else.--Gnfgb2 05:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a picture of Jimbo is one of the most basic things you would expect at this article. Jimbo is probably the first person anyone would think of associated with WP, so provided we illustrate the article, a picture of him is a good idea. I didn't realize we had one of Sanger; it must have been added very recently. Wales is clearly more important than Sanger, both in the founding of and especially current history of Wikipedia. Even if we should assume Sanger was just as important as Jimbo, whatever that is supposed to mean, he has long left the project. This article isn't called Co-founder(s) of Wikipedia, it's about Wikipedia in general, and hence Wales is obviously more relevant. Having said that, I was never a big fan of the ugly old logo, and the small pictures of Wales and Sanger in history works quite well. Richard001 08:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Larry Sanger 

message: I did ctrl+F and find no mention of Essjay or Seigenthaler. Any controversy on wikipedia with its own article should be accessible from this page, don't you think?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 23:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scandal'us 

message: What is that strange grey-y/blue liney object used as the background on every page? Why does the Arabic wikipedia have a different one? --86.135.216.24 01:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Arabic Wikipedia -- Taku 12:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can I see a picture of the background? --86.135.216.24 13:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prepare yourself to be surprised: Wikipedia background image. --63.246.162.72 16:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh i see now... Now i want to know where it came from and who made it etc... anyone know what the book is? Encyclopedia Brittanica? :p --86.135.216.24 17:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, my god! It's a book! And I thought I am one of the long-time contributors. - Taku 22:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  background 

message: I've noticed that there has been many acts of vandalism upon this page, and most likely, this post will be vandalised sometime in the future. Is it possible to semi-protect this page, as this seems to be causing a bit of trouble. For example, as I was scanning the history of the page, I realized that reverting the article to its non-vandalised state would delete new editions to this article, forcing one to manually sort out vandalism. Anyways, I'm sure a non-registered person who has a great suggestion would be able to wait a few days of registering. Rfts (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protect talk page? 

message: How does Wikipedia know for sure that two articles are about the same topic in different languages?--24.166.56.195 (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, interlanguage links are added by people who can read both languages. For some topics, that's not even necessary: if I look at a Japanese biology article and see the Latin genus and species name is the same as in an English article, I can safely assume the two articles are about the same critter. Sometimes bots add the links too, on the principle that if A = B and B = C, then A = C. —Angr 21:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article in different languages 

message: Before I assume that this is the very vandalism it seems to be referring to (i.e. "random letters"), will someone tell me if there is such thing as a pletter? I will remove it soon. Cuindless (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you are right ;) -- lucasbfr talk 16:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random ""?  

message: Have the web server automatically change the following static text in this article every 5 minutes:
"As of December 2007, Wikipedia had approximately 9 ¼ million articles in 253 languages"
"As of <=TODAY()>, Wikipedia haS approximately <=TOTALNUMBEROFARTICLES()> articles in 253 languages...."
What do you think about this?  Please comment to me on my Talk: page and thanks kindly.
--Vid2vid (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure using the parser's magic words is a very good idea, it might have some unintended consequences for the mirrors for example (say I import this article on my personal wiki, it would output "15 articles"). -- lucasbfr talk 16:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SUGGESTION (UNRELATED) 

message: Wikipedia (IPA: /ˌwɪkɨˈpiːdiə/, /ˌwiːkiˈpiːdiə/, /ˌwɪkiˈpiːdiə/ or /ˌwiːkiˈpeɪdiə/) (Audio (U.S.) (help·info)) is a free,[4] multilingual, open content encyclopedia project operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a type of collaborative website) and encyclopedia. Launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, it is the largest, fastest growing and most popular general reference work currently available on the Internet.[5][6]
As of December 2007, Wikipedia had approximately 9 ¼ million articles in 253 languages, comprising a combined total of over 1.74 billion words for all Wikipedias. The English Wikipedia edition passed the 2,000,000 article mark on September 9, 2007, and as of January 30, 2008 it had over 2,200,000 articles consisting of over 957,000,000 words.[2] Wikipedia's articles have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and the vast majority of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet. Having steadily risen in popularity since its inception,[1] it currently ranks among the top ten most-visited websites worldwide.[7]
Critics have questioned Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy, citing its open nature.[8] The criticism is centered on its susceptibility to vandalism, such as the insertion of profanities or random letters into articles, and the addition of spurious or unverified information;[9] uneven quality, systemic bias and inconsistencies;[10] and for favoring consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[11] Scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived.[12][13]
In addition to being an encyclopedic reference, Wikipedia has received major media attention as an online source of breaking news as it is constantly updated.[14][15] When Time Magazine recognized "You" as their Person of the Year 2006, praising the accelerating success of on-line collaboration and interaction by millions of users around the world, Wikipedia was the first particular "Web 2.0" service mentioned, followed by YouTube and MySpace.[16  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.1.27 (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the Guinness Book of World Records even a reliable source? I didn't think so. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 23:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Well, even if GWR isn't reliable, wouldn't Wikipedia's record as the largest encyclopedia already be quite obvious? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 00:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Nevermind, I guess I forgot to look at the article before I posted this comment. When I checked, It was already there. It says we beat even the one that remained the largest encyclopedia for 600 years, great work everybody! Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 22:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 1,145,000 sheets of paper. Each book is 1,000 pages, so divide the sheets by 1,000. That makes 1,145 books four inches at the spine. Four times 1,145 is 4,580. 4,580 inches / 63,360 = ~0.0722 miles, or 381.216 feet (116 m). --Henry W. Schmitt 21:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than going first up to miles and then back down to feet, 4580 inches / 12 = 381.666667 ft (381'8", or 116.33 m). Certainly more shelf space than I have in my study! However, if Wikipedia were to be published as a series of books, it probably would be on much thinner paper than that, as most big encyclopedias and bibles are. 1000 sheets of paper like the kind my King James Bible is printed on is only about 2 inches thick; 1,145,000 sheets would then be 3000 inches (200'10"; 58.17 m) thick. Add in another eighth of an inch for covers on each 2000-page (1000-sheet) volume, though, and that adds another 143 inches (11'11"; 3.63 m). So in total, we're looking at over 200 ft of encyclopedia. Not 72 miles yet, but still impressive. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 08:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia might interest you. -- Taku 09:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And especially Wikipedia:Size in volumes, which I had never seen before. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 09:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "689.1 volumes of the Encyclopædia Britannica." Good god. -- Taku 09:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right. I'd like to see how long the featured articles are. Real encyclopedia don't have articles that are not at least the quality of Wikipedia's featured ones. Except real encyclopedias don't feature Pokemon and Reese's Pieces. I suppose bad articles are better than no articles, but Wikipedia is not going to trump books anytime soon. --Henry W. Schmitt 07:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  world record! 

message: i am thinking about how "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" would be translated into Mongolian in the Mongolian Wikipedia. What is the exact meaning of "the free"? Personally, I think it is free, because no one have to pay for what they read. Or is it free, because everyone can access freely? Please help me to determine the right meaning. Bilguun.alt 05:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "free as in free speech", not "free as in free beer". Please read gratis vs. libre for more about this important distinction. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 19:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do both not apply? I see it as a play on words. the_undertow talk 19:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both don't apply because not all forms of Wikipedia will necessarily be free as in free beer. The much discussed CD-ROM version, if it ever actually appears, will almost certainly be sold for a price. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 19:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is purely speculative. In addition, that would imply that the content on the CD-ROM could not be found on the website. As far as users are concerned, Wikipedia is free to edit and free to use: speech and beer. the_undertow talk 19:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it isn't. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 20:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Free Encyclopedia 

message: After a discussion as to the impact of Wikipedia on the world and our everyday society.  My co-workers and I came to the agreement that Wikipedia was perhaps the greatest innovation in information availability since the invention of the printing press.  And as the printing press could be used to spread knowledge but it could also be used to spread propaganda and lies.  As Wikipedia grows in volume of information and becomes more and more prevalent in our society as the best source for any information you could ever want or need it has the potential to become very similar to the "Ministry of Truth".  Clearly we are a long way off from the "Ministry of Truth" described in George Orwell's book 1984, but potentially we have the power collective as a society to change any fact historical, literary or scientific.....    Or if it was taken over by a government agency of coarse. :-P
With the power of Wikipedia I wouldn't be surprised if a world government sometime in the near future doesn't forge their own private Wikipedia (and block the real deal) and populate it with only the information they deem acceptable.  And a true "Ministry of Truth" is born.
Thoughts?
--John hmstr (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's called "The Press" in some countries ;) -- lucasbfr talk 09:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia as the Ministry of Truth 

message: I saw in the article that they have hundreds of Linux computers running a dedicated server. I want to know how much memory is used to keep this site up. I know YouTube has quite a few terabytes. This surely must have quite a few. -KT-
KT529 (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not find the hardware specs, but the database is surprisingly small - maybe around 30 GB. It's hard to take up too much space with what is mostly text. Video, as on YouTube, is the worst. And for the space of one average MP3, you can have all the text in the King James Bible.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not the size of the database, but the number of requests. Most of the pages are dynamically rendered, i.e. the page data is extracted from the database, it is rendered from Wiki markup into HTML (although that might be cached), the individual links are added ("my talk, my preferences,"...), the user preferences are applied, and the page is served out. Add to that all the special requests (history, comparison, diffs, inserts...). Wikipedia is not limited by disk space for the primary DB, but by processing power and network bandwidth. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Much Memory? 

message: Sorry for being late with this:
Wikipedia in culture → Wikipedia#Cultural significance.
We don't need an edit for every "ooh, Sideshow Bob mentioned Wikipedia!" Such trivia is discouraged per WP:5P, but it is a fact that Wikipedia is a cultural phenomenom. We should, then, focus on connective trivia on how its made an impact with an example. Such is the case with "Inaccuracy: The Onion; Source of information: The Office; Meta-humour: xkcd", which is in the article. Will (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPC merge 

message: Do you think it would help the community if at the bottom of the articles it showed who posted them? Then we could more directly communicate any errors to be fixed (if they're an active user). -KT-
-killertank529- (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the history link. It gives access to all authors (there usually are many) and allows you to see each change. However, this being a Wiki, if you find an error, just fix it yourself. However, these question is somewhat misplaces here - this is the talk page for the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia, not a general chat board about Wikipedia. You might want to try the village pump (WP:VILLAGE]). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show Who Posted Article? 

message: I have re-added the primary sources tag to the Language editions section, after it was removed with the comment that it "looked ok". I disagree with this assertion: everything in the section is cited to primary sources. The only secondary source discusses the topic of the section (Language editions) only in a trivial manner, and is not sufficient. This is a problem throughout the whole of this article, but starting small seems like a good idea. User:Krator (t c) 13:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But do we really need secondary sources for stats or lists, non-controversial facts? I also propose: If some particular statements need more citation, then it would be better to use . I said "looked ok" because it was unclear what a problem was. -- Taku (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source concerns 

message: Why is it that on the English Main Page, the Wikipedia Globe Logo features a backwards "Ñ" on one of the puzzle pieces, yet on the multi-lingual page that links to every Wikipedia, the И does not have a tilde? --Ye Olde Luke 00:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but what that letter is is the Cyrillic letter Й. —Angr 05:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's strange, I've never noticed this point. Some language editions use the same logo than the multilingual portal use (like {ar} or {sv}) and some others like {en}, {de}, {fr} don't... Maybe some answer elements or clues can be found on Meta-Wiki. 16@r (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globe Logo 

message: Why would wikipedia have an article on itself?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PwnersRule (talk • contribs) 13:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's a notable website that has received a lot of discussion in sources independent of itself. It would certainly be a strange omission for an encyclopedia not to have an article about it. (And after all, Britannica has an article about itself, so why shouldn't Wikipedia?) —Angr If you've written a quality article... 14:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Angr!--PwnersRule (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to point out that Britannica also has an article about Wikipedia.  --130.15.161.188 (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Britannica have an artice on britanica though?  :P  87.194.30.174 (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it does. It has articles on several other encyclopaedias as well. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 14:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason they think it is a notable website is because they created it. Of course they are going to have a article on their website, they're conceited.05:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: 80.165.181.235 (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it only says Wikipedia is impractical for use with screen readers, not that it can't be used with them. And it's tagged as unsourced, so maybe it was just one person's guess or opinion. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 19:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  screenreading technology? 

message: A discussion about another wiki brought up an important issue. Unlike other text under the GFDL
I don't download the whole thing before making modifications. Before Wikipedia one would copy a
document, edit it on my computer, and then distribute the modified version.
I believe there should be some information about the mechanism that places contributions under the
GFDL. Has anyone ever published a legal opinion that explains why having a little note at the
bottom of the edit page places my contribution under the GFDL?
What allowed the content under the Bomis license to become GFDL? I'm assuming it was a donation.
Did someone write a letter saying the following information is now under the GFDL?
--Gbleem (talk) 06:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licensing and user contributions. 

message: One of the references at the end pf the article points to a non-existent page.
It points to an article in The Washington Post, which is no longer there. Maybe there's some sort of archive we can point to? Not being familiar with that website, I took no action.  --Ruijoel (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Link 

message: This article has an external link to wikipedia.com. Though I agree that it is important to document the original URL of wikipedia, I don't think this should be an external link. When the link is clicked it just sends me to wikipedia.org, and I am already there. If someone who is able to edit this page wouldn't mind, it would be great if that link was removed. RedSox2008 (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about wikipedia. You may already be there, but other people may not. Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL and other people are free to reuse our content. There ae also attempts to make wikipedia available on DVDs and CDs or even print for those without good access to the internet. You may want to read Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid. To put it simply, wikipedia should not be written from a wikipedia point of view. Nil Einne (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  URL 

message: In the intrest of neutralism, I think there ought to be a criticisms section on this article.
Llamadog903 (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to have been deleted in a fit of unnoticed vandalism in the past few days. I just restored it. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 19:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What an absurdly one-sided story. If anything, it's become increasingly difficult to get crap articles on nonnotable topics deleted from Wikipedia over the last few years. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 09:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms section 

message: Here's my mild criticism for the people a wikipedia. Though I truly enjoy the service I find the method used to solicit donations to be quite petty. Getting slammed at every page to please donate a person could find themselves under the impression that wikipedia is hurting for funds to run the website. Looking at their donations page however it is clearly not the case. I find it hard to imagine that a lot of staff is needed to run wikipedia as it is completely built by it's viewers. Staff are needed to police the articles (as I'm sure this one will be pulled) but I hardly see their being a shortage of funds for them looking at the volume of donations received by the website. Beyond that, new hardware and software as well as other expenses seem to all be more than covered looking at the donations page. So where's all the money going? I can make a guess but will keep that to myself. Anyway, having a donations page is a great idea. But do you really have to act like you are in such need of funds when you are receiving ridiculous amounts of money already? Is the wiki team sick of flying business and considering a private jet? Does the head office seem a little boring and making trump tours look more your style? Please. You want donations and you're getting them. Stop acting like your going broke because no one is buying it. If anything, seeing that banner at the top of every page makes me want to donate even less then before. It's just greedy. My advice is that you stop before someone does an expose on you guys and where their "donations" are going. Seems like something I may see on dateline someday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.146.101.146 (talk • contribs)  28 December 2007
:If you really want to know, they're moving much of their equipment and things to San Francisco, CA, and making a couple new board positions, and they also want to become a global outreach charity for the distribution of free knowledge (OLPC and all), and they still need to pay their electricity bill, so there! 68.101.123.219 (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donations 

message: The license of that screenshot bothers me. I thought this was a free encyclopedia. It really has to be changed or removed! --212.247.27.80 (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  License of that screenshot 

message: has the icon that appears before the adress in IE7 changed from a W to some multicoloured thing DAVID CAT 16:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  logo 

message: There are lots of articles out there about our WP experiment. I am wondering what the consensus is for inclusion of any of these articles in an external links section here? For example, here is one, albeit, of a more controversial nature, but still interesting:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/ Giovanni33 (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Press coverage is a good place for this kind of stuff. In this article, on the other hand, it is just not a practical to mention every single scandal involving Wikipedia. It's probably a good idea to expand on the power structure of wikipedia, though; like, how Wikipedia is a not democracy. The current article doesn't clearly describe the extent of the power Jimbo has over editorial decisions or such. The challenge is to achieve this in a non-self-referential concise manner. -- Taku (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  article about Wikipedia? 

message: I couldn't find any info about it. Where can I find it? Is it Debian and if so what version? Do all servers run on the same Linux distribution? Tommy (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A mixture - mostly Fedora and Ubuntu. You can see more on Meta-Wiki. Will (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Tommy (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Linux distribution runs Wikipedia? 

message: Shouldn't this article link to Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media and Wikipedia:Editing of Wikipedia by the media?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.64.213 (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia in the media 

message: this is why people should not trust wikipedia beacause a girl who is not in her 20s is writting this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.246.217 (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to learn not to trust wikipedia. 

message: What's the password to edit Wikipedia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunchscale\Lobbykneew (talk • contribs) 08:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No password is needed: you can edit most pages. This page is semi protected to prevent vandalism: you will be able to edit this page 4 days after you registered your account. --h2g2bob (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline text 

message: The article is no longer in the "current_edition."  The correct hyperlink is: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=209408  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.253.42 (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Note that any user can fix errors they see. PeterSymonds | talk 18:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not IPs, this page is semi protected :) --h2g2bob (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The link for footnote number 68 is wrong. 

message: Thankyou Nbeniwal for the details  of Wikipedia's mention by the Supreme Court of India.  I don't think it warrants being in the introduction though, so I am moving it here for now:
The in Commr. of Customs, Bangalore vs. ACER India Pvt. Ltd (Citation: 2007(12)SCALE581) stated that: We have referred to wikipedia, as the learned Counsel for the parties relied thereupon. It is an online encyclopaedia and information can be entered therein by any person and as such it may not be authentic. It may be useful to note that observations of the Supreme Court are binding on all courts in India.
Once the citation is re-formatted as a footnote (is this available online?), I think this could be included briefly in the Criticism section.  Open4D (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From this text: . I think the text about a specific case where they're using definitions from Wikipedia for non-controversial definitions? --h2g2bob (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention by the Supreme Court of India 

message: Shouldn't the word 'Wikipedia' be italicized? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, an encyclopedia is a work, and names of works should be italicized (like titles of books, albums, magazines, films and tv series are.) — Jhn* 20:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro of the article defines wikipedia to be an "encyclopedia building project" so I guess that's why the name wikipedia is not italicized. -- Taku (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics 

message: Founders are listed...then another paragraph lists them again, stating what each brought to the project.  What each brought to project should be moved up, after first mention of founders, and the redundant paragraph deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.2.27 (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founders listed twice 

message: Hello, I will start with a bit of context, please bear with me. I was reading an article about hackers earlier today and they were talking about a 10 000$ fine,then I watched a movie about the civil war and tehy talk about 25$, 300$ and 1000$ and it got me thinking... how much is that worth?! Wouldin't it be possible to have pages show and automaticaly update a nominal value? For example, if someone got fined 1000 in 1977, it would be shown as
"1000 $(equivalent to 2000$ today)"
or if the fine was 1000$ in 2000 it would say:
"1000$ (equivalent to 1180$ today)"
and the multiplyer could be updated yearly but variable would keep the same name so that the algorithm would not have to be changed. The article would not be touched but would be automaticaly updated. This way we could have a table of multiplyers for different years\countries updated yearly or more if wanted and you just have to insert the line of code that applies to your contry (since inflation enormously varies from one country to an other).
Along the same lines, could we not have an automatic conversion to USD and\or €? (Being canadian I know that I would like to see it in CAD$ but hey, who am I kidding lol)
Julienrl (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real and nominal $ values in articles 

message: Wikipedia currently runs on dedicated clusters of GNU/Linux servers, 300 in Florida, 26 in Amsterdam and 23 in Yahoo!'s Korean hosting facility in Soul.[48] Wikipedia employed a single server until 2004, when the server setup was expanded into a distributed multitier architecture. In January 2005, the project ran on 39 dedicated servers located in Florida. This configuration included a single master database server running MySQL, multiple slave database servers, 21 web servers running the Apache HTTP Server, and seven Squid cache servers.
</blockquote>
220.133.92.72 (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks! -- Vary | Talk 17:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The error was due to me. It escaped the spell-checker. I still can't believe that I made that error. -- Taku (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software and hardware 

message: Since nearly all the terms related to Wikipedia (Wikimedia, MediaWiki, etc.) are easily confused by people finding out the "wikisphere", I was thinking of the idea of creating a new article titled Wikipedia (terminology) similar to British Isles (terminology) (British Isles (disambiguation) is a redirect) and Netherlands (terminology) (and Netherlands (disambiguation)). But I prefer to request for comments before creating it because it's useless to write something if it's deleted a few while after. So what do you think of it? 16@r (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. -- Taku (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia (terminology) 

message: How long does it take from me becoming an editor (this week) to being able to be a full administrator on Wikipedia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangola (talk • contribs) 22:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion page is for discussing the article about Wikipedia, not the use of Wikipedia itself. Regardless, see Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. You must put in a considerable amount of effort and work into Wikipedia to become an Administrator.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottydude (talk • contribs) 20:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administration 

message: any1 noticed sum tard has called us cock sucking deuch-bags on the description of the site thingy?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki443556 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: "As of December 2007 !!!!you guys are cock sucking douche bags.," -- vandalism to be removed -- How can this happen is the page is protected?? 216.194.0.237 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was only a cache problem. I fixed it. 79.1.74.103 (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More vandalism 

message: If anyone wants to mention a study done that found that about one percent of Wikipedia's contributors control most of the content, a good reference is an article at Slate here. —134.139.135.84 (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slate 

message: When I typed Wikipedia into the search bar on the left hand side I read for a minute and then came down to the 'Reliability and bias' section. There I found a really small spelling error that should be corrected. In the first paragraph of that headline is dispalyed here:
:"Wikipedia does not require that its contributors give their legal names or provide other information to establish their identity. A 2007 study by researchers from Dartmouth College found that anonymous and infrequent contributors to Wikipedia are as reliable a source of knowledge as those contributors who register with the site..."
The Italic text is techonally a grammer error. I tried to fix it myself but the is a Wiki Personel Only Editing thing I guess. Just though I'd give you the heads up.
Ridem92
:The page is protected so that people without Wikipedia accounts, like me, and those with new accounts cannot edit it. After your account is four days old, however, you will be able to fix it yourself if no one else does. — 134.139.135.84 (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I missing something? Where's the mistake? The JPSwirlface (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling Error Needs to be Fixed 

message: I propose that we merge the above article into here. While I believe the topic (Deletionism v.s. Inclusionism) is a valid encyclopedic topic because of the media coverage, I don't think it merits the detailed standalone article. The issue is not currently mentioned in the Wikipedia article, which is not good at all, and it seems to make sense to discuss it here in a succinct manner. -- Taku (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with [[Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia]] 

message: Does anybody want to tell me why Vikipedia redirects to the Wikipedia article? Joelster (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's Vikipedia? Since no articles in Wikipedia links to it, the redirect is probably unneeded. -- Taku (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My point exactly. Joelster (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi, I don't remember my exact reasons for creating the page, but I suspect it's because "Vikipedia" is the name of Wikipedia in various languages, or at least a declention of the noun form "Vikipedio"... see for example:    . Vikipedio, Vikipediya etc are already redirects as well. Cheers — SteveRwanda (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought. That's fair enough I guess. Thanks for replying anyway. Cheers, Joelster (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vikipedia 

message: http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Antiwikipedia/awp_index.html
:What about it? Do you want to use it as a source? Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A techno-cult of ignorance 

message: why do you need links and stuff when you have everything you need to know on the wikipedia site? just have the makers edit this and ur done, all facts are down.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.235.205 (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  links= completly pointless on this article 

message: The last name of Aaron Swartz appears to be misspelled in entry no. 52.  (A moment ago I corrected the same mistake (and added a hyperlink) in the section titled "Content and internal structure.")  Fagiolonero (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. -- Taku (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A misspelling in reference no. 52 

message: Here is a posting by Larry, I am wondering if we can use it as a source.... according to this letter, wikipedia was his idea and Jimmy was opposed to it initially. [] Sethie (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letter as a source 

message: i am sorry for vandliseing a good advance wars artical please accept my apology
and could you please tell me who sent my warning letter  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.73.96 (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's okay, just don't do it again :) The warning was issued by User:penubag. Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OFF TOPIC Wikipedia im sorry 

message: Why are two different versions used, although the differences are only minor ones. --72.75.52.243 (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between logo used on Wikipedias and the one used on the multilingual portal 

message: I would argue that the eponymous wikipedia entry should have a section on style, addressing the style in which wikipedia articles are written.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwinslow s (talk • contribs) 05:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style Section 

message: This talk page has 69 KB (10460 words). This could cause a lot of technical issues so I think we should WP:Archive this talk page. I'd use the subpage method, cut-and-paste procedure. I'd leave the threads started in March 2008 still here, because they might still be active. What do you think? Note: If there are no objections by Wednesday, I will perform the archiving. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just set up auto-archiving on this page. All old discussions will be automatically archived by a bot every day. You don't need to do anything. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:38, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Why isn't this a featured article, I mean It's been on here for such a long time and seems okay... LOTRrules (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FA isn't for okay articles, it's for outstanding articles. Also this is a former FA. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:16, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA 

message: Someone at my school had the smart idea to vandalize a post and now we cant edit wikipedia at my school could you lift this ban somehow because i love to edit things the right way  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.73.96 (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Create an account! Once you do, you'll be able to edit Wikipedia even when the school IP is blocked.Also, don't worry about the block on your school's IP. Such blocks are typically rather short (24-48 hours for a first time offence). I don't think I can provide any more help without further information, I don't know the IP address of your school. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help Me Wikipedia 

message: Where is the word count for the English Wikipedia obtained? I looked at the page linked to by the second endnote, but couldn't find any word counts.--Magicwith4 (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word Count 

message: Yeah, I know that showing an article on ourself would make Wikipedia look sort of...vain...but I never knew that featured articles could be barred from the main page. Could someone give me another example? (I read this from the FACs, I know this isn't FA anymore, don't worry). Teh Rote (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only one, to my knowledge, that Raul won't choose is Jenna Jameson The Placebo Effect (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An article about a porn star...I see. I suppose that makes sense, but I don't think any article should be barred from the main page if it truly is good enough for the barnstar. Teh Rote (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Not suitable for the main page"? 

message: The article doesn't mention why "Wikipedia" isn't called "wikipaedia" - I don't know why it is the case, but surely there must be a reason for the (deliberate?) spelling mistake? Bensonby (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Same reason "Encyclopedia" is correct. They're alternate spellings, one not being more correct than the other. The "ae" conjunction is, I think, considered fairly archaic and isn't used very often anymore. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:46, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

text: With encyclopedia it kinda is:American English: encyclopediaBritish English: encyclopedia and encyclopaedia is correctHowever, I feel that "Wikipedia" is a name. So just like Pearl Harbor can never be spelt "harbour", just I think Wikipedia is always Wikipedia. If your name was "Sara", I wouldn't spell your name "Sarah" even though that's also a correct spelling. Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good question though, because i know the Encyclopaedia Britannica uses the "ae" . --</post> Geek45 (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No one's questioning the the "ae" spelling of encyclopedia. Wikipedia was started by Americans, so it uses the American spelling. Britannica was started by Brits, so it uses the British spelling. Simple as that. --DearPrudence (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipaedia? 

message: I heard on the news tonight (the article was at the end of the six o'clock news on BBC Radio 4, that today, Wikipedia saw its ten millionth article. If you go to this website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/03
you will see how the BBC covered this story. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia makes BBC news on March 31, 2008 

message: This article claims there are about 75,000 active contributors for this encyclopaedia. Is there any way to locate them back to the country of residence? Also, where are the requests to the server coming from? I would like to make a bubble map like this.
:thumb|right|Visitors to wikipedia.org in 2008 Assuming that Compete data and Alexa data are correct, why is wiki so popular in South America?Anwar (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so important, but still: I think the colors are confusing! I see red as either "a lot" or "bad" and green could be interpreted in a similar fashion. How about a more neutral color scheme? And also, (more importantly!): the map is missing me! ;D --Apis O-tang (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Red and Green are staples in any modern colour scheme. I adopted the traffic-sign model and inserted a intermediary Yellow (instead of Blue). These three colours can be rendered even in pretty old legacy computer screens. All remaining 16.5 million colours are derivatives of RGB. Else, the reader may see only shades of Black and White. The primary motive for colour choice was usability, not aesthetic appeal.Anwar (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very good point, but there are other colours that are available even on screens with very few colors. Just wanted to point out that people might have values associated with the traffic-sign colors. I agree that usability is the most important factor. --Apis 22:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the 684 million Wikipedians? 

message: I was wondering if someone may type a story on their user page and leave it accessible to anyone who goes to their user page. I think that it may be a good idea for young writers who want to be critiqued, but want to stay hidden beneath their user name.Belazael (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great idea, but Wikipedia isn't the place for that (see WP:USER and WP:NOT).  I'm sure there already exists wikis for this purpose.  Uncyclopedia is a could be a good option for things that are more humor-oriented.  There's always Wikibooks for textbooks and manuals and Wikinews for journalism.  There's plenty of other options in :Category:Wikis.  -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 04:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The specific policy about user pages is at: Wikipedia:User page. It begins with: Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia. So putting a story up for crituque probable not appropriette. I would however suggest the site DeviantArt. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 10:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm wondering about what someone can put on their user page 

message: Note: The heading was added by User:Puchiko to improve clarity.
Hi! I hate to say this, but it seems wierd Wikipedia has an article about itself.--Gladboy101 (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Britanicca has an article about itself too. It also has an article about Wikipedia. I see no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on itself. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia has an article about itself 

message: After correcting an error I made regarding the title of this new 45-minute documentary about Wikipedia (and repeating the error in the url of the citation because I had to work hurriedly from memory rather than being able to cut-and-paste), another editor undid the addition:  No problem, but I think this film is really worth a mention somewhere in the article, since it would be of interest to the average person looking up Wikipedia for the first time and is available to be viewed online at YouTube.  Here is a direct link to the page I cited if anybody is interested in watching it and offering feedback on whether they think it is worthy of inclusion here:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/04/08/the-truth-according-to-wikipedia/ An unattributed source (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I thought it was a vandalism or something, since the article called "Truth About Wikipedia" (or something) was deleted for being non-sense. I'm undoing my edit. -- Taku (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Unless there is a reliable source mentioning this documentary, I doubt it is worth of mention somewhere in the article. It's not our job to promote non-noteable documentaries, no matter what they're about Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree we must not promote non-notable films. On the other hand, are we sure that this is really a minor documentary? From what I know, it aired in Netherlands. -- Taku (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Truth According to Wikipedia" documentary film 

message: Does anybody get the feeling that this page is rediculously biased? I love Wikipedia just as much as the next addict, but I can't help feeling like this needs one of those  tags. Anyone else? Lesserm (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... could you pinpoint the exact sentences? Looking at the article, it does display Wikipedia in a favourable light, but it also includes a criticism paragraph in the lead, and a whole section in the body of the article. Puchiko (Talk-email) 10:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20070827/the-true-history-of-wikipedia/ 84.245.22.189 (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The piece seems to be more on History of Wikipedia rather than this article. I really don't think the issue is about the interpretation of the history; it's more to do with the space. This article is already long, and there is just not a room for the detailed account of how the original idea for wikipedia was formed. As to the above, I can certainly image that the article might read in favor of wikipedia, in part because we all have Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with it. So, specific suggestions for changes are welcome. -- Taku (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do like how they have locked the page so you can't edit it!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.142.126.245 (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do want to edit this page, create an account and log in. Jons63 (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Anyone with an account older than four days can edit it. It is only locked to prevent vandalism. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: Given that Wikipedia has articles on Uncyclopedia and Conservapedia, would it be fair if it were to include a website on "antiWikipedia", the website dedicated to material deleted from Wikipedia? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if you can prove the notability (WP:NOTABLE) of the site. There's also some information at Wikipedia:WikiProject Websites#How do I know if a Website is worth noting in Wikipedia. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AntiWikipedia 

message: Wales spent £1 million on site maintenance in 2007. How much of these is donor money?Anwar (talk)
:Being a non-profit, wouldn't it all be donor money? Richard001 (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donation 

message: Note: The below text was originally added to the top of the talk page. Puchiko (Talk-email) moved it down here, added the section heading, and substituted  No edits to the text were made.
Wikipedia is a great concept. Any article can be created (in theory), it's open to criticism and anyone can contribute so the information should be correct. That's the good bit, then it goes bad: an admin is on standby to make sure all edits are encyclopedic. Like communism, power corrupts. You'll notice in edit histories that what remains in an article is an admin's view disguised by sources to make it look neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.79.175 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Administrators have technical tools, but they aren't "super editors". I think that while a lot of our articles are POV, that's being worked out and I don't think that many admins push their POV into articles. I think it would greatly help if you could give a specific example. Thanks. Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power corrupts 

message: I mentioned it a while back, but I'll raise it here again.  The ever-present use of Portmanteau has become a bit of an in-joke among Wikipedians, and seeing it here in the lead section of our (just about) most prominent article adds to the word's mystique.  But the correct term, if I'm not mistaken, is blend, more widely used by linguists and easier for a reader to understand.  I know that Wikipedia's greatest weakness has been shown not to be its reliability, but its readability.  Fishal (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a Request for Comment at Talk:Portmanteau.  Fishal (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portmandemic 

message: On April 23, 2008, El Tiempo, Colombia's highest circulation daily newspaper, mentioned Wikipedia on its front page, calling it "'God' of the web". front page (Spanish)
Unless calling Wikipedia a 'God' in a major nation-wide publication happens more often than I imagine? :) Kreachure (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, thanks for the input. :P To answer my own question, it's a pretty peculiar occurrence, but I deem it unnecessary for the purpose of the article (I already put it in the Wikipedia in the media page; I think it's enough having it there). Kreachure (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this worth mentioning here? 

message: Hi everybody,
I just skimmed the Hungary article, and I wanted to read it in another language. But since there were soooo many, I really spent some seconds looking for the button. Wouldn't it be easy to print the often used-languages boldly (for registered users)? That would be a real convenience! 212.41.80.236 (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think its necessary to put emphasis on certain languages. The links are put in alphabetical order, I think that makes it clear enough. Seeing the Hungarian article though, I can understand that you got confused, as the link to the English article is on top of the list instead of under the Greek (Ελληνικά) link. Not exactly consistent. Cheers, Face 11:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just think it might be senseful to highlight the languages you "actually will click". There are probably very few people who will click often on a language they don't know... it thus might make sense to fade those you won't need out in order to simplify the website? For unregistered users it makes obviously no sense at all to highlight some (random?) languages.212.41.80.236 (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold user-languages 

message: I feel a bit stupid asking this, but I can't find any mention of this number 683 million in . Also, even if the number is true, I think this "visitors" is "US visitors" not international, making it inappropriate to mention in the intro. -- Taku (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  683 million visitors annually 

message: Clay Shirky and Martin Wattenberg estimate the effort to create Wikipedia at 100,000,000 man-hours. GregorB (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An interesting bit of information... 

message: Am I the only one who thinks that the bubble map makes no sense?  It really doesn't tell us much.  Those red dots seem completely arbitrary and I have no idea what "top market" means (the internet doesn't give an immediate answer either).  The creator's user page has some information about what exactly a bubble map is, but it seems sort of technical and doesn't help with reading the Wikipedia one.
I suggest that it should be removed
134.10.22.103 (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's up with that "bubble map" 

message: You might want to add info from this article that talks about where we get our traffic. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, the report talks about U.S. traffic to English Wikipedia, rather than Wikipedia in general in the global setting. I wonder, whether the 8,000 percent increase is really significant or not, because if you start from a small number, it is easy to get the phenomenal growth in terms of percentage. -- Taku (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible ref 

message: when you search up a song or anything related to a song it be better if the song could actually be played
e.g:If you type oliver twist musical it will give you a whole list of songs they sung, it would be even better if you could hear those songs!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.0.149 (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be even better to not get sued into obvlivion. Nice idea, but not gonna happen. Rwiggum (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Yup. Copyright is a huge issue. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe we should add sounds to wiki 

message: seems like the ¨long term abuse page guy¨ (guess he meant page abuse) will carry on until someone else has a go.
Popular wikipedia topics are rather like mountains... and vandals like the mountaineers who will always have a go ¨because its there¨... or will the software get REALLY clever? 81.103.112.205 (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have User:ClueBot to defend us! (Seriously, the software will have better and better regexps for vandal detection). ffm 21:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: And there's always page protection. Plus, don't forget about the huge Wikipedia community which keeps an eye out. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  eternal vandalism? 

message: Today's Married to the Sea comic mentions Wikipedia; I'm just throwing this out there in case someone wants to add it to the "culture" section (like we need another comic there...). ~EdGl (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another comic about Wikipedia 

message: Note: The heading isn't by the original poster, it was added by Puchiko (Talk-email) to improve the organization of the talk page.
wats up with the deletion of the matt sabia page?! someone help me out here  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmac4 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. The deletion log, states the the article "Matt sabia" has been deleted four times. The most common reason was criteria A7 of the speedy deletion policy, which states: An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of  verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. For more information, I'd advise you to consult: Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? and Wikipedia:Your first article. Good luck. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted page 

message: The Speedy Delete Option should not remove the page instantly, it should create a record or a log of the "to be deleted record" so if such needs to be disputed they page can be recovered other wise, you will lose potentially important information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinkaz (talk • contribs) 19:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't, it just tags it for deletion immediately (subject to admin approval) rather than going via a debate process. As for the information, if there is anything useful it wouldn't be speedydeleted. Oh, and please note this is a page for the article wikipedia, not for questions about wikipedia processes. Please go to Wikipedia:Help Desk. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Speedy Delete option 

message: should we perhaps change "...about the free encyclopedia..." to "...about the free wiki encyclopedia"?
are not we a wiki first?  and an encyclopedia second.  i get yelled at for bringing this up.  if i'm wrong all i need is directions to another way to see this.
really i suppose i'm concerned because i want to take whichever view is best for wikipedia.
for now i feel that to consider ourselves an encyclopedia first, and a wiki second (if at all), would lack neutrality.
this could be our downfall, and i love this wiki more than any encyclopedia that has ever given me papercuts.
if you respond, understand the degree of sincerity in my suggestion and/or question.  thank you.
--Harlequence (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  concerning one of the headings 

message: The subject of this article is not notable enough for the wiki's standards and therefore this article should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.243.6 (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has plenty of reliable sources which give notability. See the message in large letters at the top of the page. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking notability 

message: In the history section, this sentence in the last paragraph it is not referenced 
Technically a service mark, the scope of the mark is for: "Provision of information in the field of general encyclopedic knowledge via the Internet".
Who defines the scope of the mark and under which terms? Is this a general and standard classification?
Besides, I corrected ref.30, (^ Jimmy Wales: "Announcing Wikimedia Foundation", 20 June 2003, <wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org>) which was pointing to a wrong ml message. Now it links to the correct announcement of the wikimedia foundation. Poderi (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History - service mark "provision of information..." and wrong ref 

message: I rearranged the raw stacking order of the images of Larry Sanger and Jimbo Wales within this article. If you had a screen resolution of something greater than 1024 (for example 1280, like my laptop monitor), the image of Larry was getting overlapped with text. After analyzing, I noticed that the Nupedia logo was bumping Jimbo down a little bit, and since Jimbo's picture was a little below the text, Larry's picture was put a little below the text too, causing text overlap. Trading the ordering of these two images fixed the problem. I just thought I should document this here so everyone knows why I traded them. Hopefully this makes sense. TIM KLOSKE|TALK 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larry Sanger image overlap 

message: I just noticed something, with "available languages" it says "236 active editions (253 in total)", which is obviously impossible since there are more active editions than total ones. However granted the fact that I'm not sure how many total editions there are, I decided to put this here while I try to find out. --HALtalk 17:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm.... hate to break it to you, but 236 < 253, so it seems perfectly possible to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, but 236 active editions is more than 253 total editions. The total number of wikipedias should be larger than the number of wikipedias currently active. --HALtalk 18:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, 253 total editions is larger than 236 active editions. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: No i think you're confusing the number 236 (Two hundred and thrity six) with 263 (Two hundred and sixty three). 236 is smaller than 253.--Phoenix-wiki 19:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agh, apparently I can't read today... sorry about that, I fail. --HALtalk 03:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey, wait a second... 

message: I think this article should include some sort of refrence to the fact that this website is wikipedia. Thoughts? munchman | talk; 12:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is discussed in the guideline Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid. Here's the most important part:Second, self-references limit the use of Wikipedia as an open source encyclopedia suitable for forking, as permitted by our license. The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, not merely to perpetuate itself, so the articles produced should be useful even outside the context of the project used to create them.Imagine someone is reading the article "Wikipedia" on one of Wikipedia's countless mirrors, like Answers.com. Would the statement "this website is Wikipedia" still make sense? --Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  We are wikipedia 

message: I have added a link to wiki race in the culture section of this article... I haven't made many edits and I don't know if it is the type of content you want within this article. The wiki race article is new and needs links to it, which is why it is here. If it is not appropriate just reply to tell me why and in what context and which articles it should be linked to by.
Wuzzie (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki races... 

message: Hey, well, I found this grammar mistake in the page if you would please change it. Here is the sentence:
 Launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger,[4] it currently the largest, fastest-growing and most popular general reference work available on the Internet.
As you can see, "...it currently the largest..." isn't grammatically correct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincer 17 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excuse Me... 

message: I administer Ultipedia, a site largely inspired by Wikipedia, but degfdsgfdgsdfgfdicated to capturing the culture surrounding Ultimate (sport). I have been discussing integrating articles from another source which are currently under a CC-BY-SA-NC license. Since I have written most of the content on Ultipedia I am not adverse to changing licenses, but the notion of continuing to deal with cross-licensing issues is very unappealing. Is it likely that Wikipedia will change licenses ? In order to maximise cross pollination efforts with Wikipedia (both present and future), what would be the best license to use for a nascent wiki ? Ivasara (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All Creative Commons licenses are incompatible with the GFDL. If you switch to a CC license, you will not be able to use any Wikimedia foundation content. Wikimedia will probably never change licenses since that would require approval of all its contributors. — Wenli (reply here) 23:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Watch this space. Wikipedia articles are licensed under "Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation." Changes are coming to the GFDL itself, to make Wikipedia's GFDL-licensed compatible with some -- but not all -- CC licenses. However, it's very unlikely ever to become compatible with any NC licenses. See http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2007/12/wikipedia-is-free-to-relicense-under-cc.html -- The Anome (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licensing Change ? 

message: In the final paragraph of "History" section there's a citation needed tag on the text of wikipedia's trademark. I'm just a newb and don't know all the editing procedures, and I'm not sure if this link is permanent, but here is the url for the United States Patent and Trademark Office's TARR page for the Wikipedia trademark:
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78483359
The text "Providing information in the field of general encyclopedic knowledge via the Internet" can be found under the section "Goods and Services".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.104.144.250 (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source citation on trademark 

message: Sorry to bring this tedious saga back up but I was surprised after all the debate which has gone on that this article has certain references to "who is the founder" where really none is necessary. I have removed a paragraph-opening sentence, "Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales are the founders of Wikipedia." It seems unnecessary to make such a firm pronouncement without mentioning controversy over the name. The history of article goes into the foundership in well-handled detail anyway. I also rephrased a couple of references to Jimbo as "Jimmy, the founder" and "co-founder Jimmy" to "founder Jimmy" which does the job of informing who it is we're talking about but leaves it open as to whether he is the only founder or whatever.
I hope that wasn't jumping the gun too much but thought I'd explain the reasoning here. BigBlueFish (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was. There is no controversy. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall I just delete the load of citations like this one from History of Wikipedia then? Of course there was a controversy, and there is not one source which discusses that controversy and concludes with such a blanket statement as "Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales are the founders of Wikipedia". In fact, neither does the History of Wikipedia article, so by the tenets of WP:SS nor should this one. BigBlueFish (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your citation says as a matter of fact: "The question of accuracy spurred Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger..." And there are plenty of other such sources, and yet you couldn't find a single one which explicitly denies Sanger's co-foundership, so it is not disputed - other than by Wales, which on itself doesn't make a controversy. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree with BigBlueFish on this one, as Bramlet well knows. This was an issue like 3 years ago but simply is not any more as the world has moved on. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, you made a good point there. I hadn't seen that that article had treated Sanger as such, as a lot of others such as this one don't. I think in that case this should be reflected in the history of article. Also, why did you revert my removal of the label "controversy" if there is no controversy? The cited source doesn't say anything about controversy, so the label is misleading. If we need to cite something about the controversy for the stated fact, which I don't think we necessarily do (if the sub-article makes it sufficiently clear that the cofoundership is fact) then the current source used is inadequate. BigBlueFish (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundership 

message: Hello. My name is Amina. I am in middle school. My teacher says that it may not be good to use Wikipedia for research because anyone can edit it, and some stuff could be inaccurate. Can we discuss this topic and what we feel about it? I am just curious about what others would say. Thanks! I will create a Wikipedia account soon. --65.190.208.212 (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Amina. The official party line on this is that you should never use an encyclopaedia as a primary source - they're more useful for background reading. Most articles should give sources which will allow you to see where the information came from. I suggest you look at Reliability of Wikipedia for more information. This page is for discussion on how to improve the article. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using WIkipedia in the classroom... 

message: what is it  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.252.29 (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a martial art. See tae kwondo. Oh, and in future, please ask questions such as this on the reference desk. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  taicwondo 

message: Their should be a section about criticism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.10.2 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the relaibility and bias section, and the article Criticism of Wikipedia. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then someone link the critisism article to the "see also" section?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.191.48 (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Criticism sections are discoureged on wikipedia per WP:NPOV as they are a POV magnet. ffm 16:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Are all laguage versions of Wikipedia using the same MediaWiki version as en.wikipedia.org? I do not think so! Lets put it in the article.--Kozuch (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd be WP:OR at best, in any case, AFAICT, they do. ffm 14:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MediaWiki versioning 

message: What time does Wikipedia use? It is currently a couple of minutes past midnight (in England), but when I sign this, it will say it has just gone 11. Why???
DineshAdv (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: UTC? -- Taku (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, per the words at the end of every timestamp (like the one that follows: ) ffm 23:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

text: But seriously, such questions belong at the help desk, this is for coordination of the article "Wikipedia". ffm 23:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I don't know why I didn't notice that. DineshAdv (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timezone? 

message: I just saw the page just have 2 contributions. The talk page was even non-existant. What happened? Arienh4(Talk) 22:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You were probbably looking at the wrong one, as this page has no recent deletion entries in the log. ffm 23:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

text: No, we're volunteers (with a very small handful of exceptions). — xDanielx T/C\R 10:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What just happened? 

message: My middle fingers, those ones.
The criticism section mentions repeatedly various critics and commentators but, never says who. The question I and possibly other want to now is what critics and commentators feel that Wikipedia has problems and for that matter what are their EXACT complaints?  I my opinion even a few limited examples would help here. So I made up a template to (I hope) help. Here is a simple to follow template for the Wikipedia criticism section.  
Insert the info, write the citation, and you're done. 
"Many (insert method of communication.)(I.E. T.V.) commentators feel that Wikipedia is flawed. One such person is(insert commentator that operates on that method of communication.) I.E. Lou Dobbs) who feels/believes that Wikipedia is flawed because (insert reason here) I.E. loss of print encyclopedia business and further slump in the economy.)(Cite RELIABLE source here.) 
Below is a simple example of this template. 
Many T.V. commentators believe Wikipedia is flawed. One such person is Lou Dobbs who strongly believes that Wikipedia is has problems because he believes that it could put print encyclopedia out of business. Thereby leading to a further loss of jobs and an increased slump in the economy. [Random number of cititation.]
(P.S. Lou Dobbs was the only commentator who I could think of at the time.)Rengaw01 (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we should avoid the use of weasel words. Criticism of Wikipedia and Reliability of Wikipedia have more detailed list of critics and their particular problems with Wikipedia. Maybe that's why this article doesn't mention many particular names of critics. But it still does mention few of critics, which seems sufficient to me. I'm not sure about the exact nature of the  babys edit that has to be made that you think we need to do. -- Taku (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics? Which ones? 

message: There is a line in the article which reads Wikipedia is a project that attempts to summarize all of human knowledge.  I dispute this, given that WP:NOTE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE both say that there are notability requirements for articles on here. --  JediLofty UserTalk 13:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not contradiction at all. Non-notable topics, apparently, don't constitute a part of human knowledge. Human knowledge isn't "indiscriminate collection of information." -- Taku (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's just it... Human knowledge IS an indiscriminate collection of information.  I know that there's a branch of Tesco in the town where I live.  It's not notable, and I couldn't find a reliable source to create an article about it (nor would I want to really) but it is part of human knowledge. :-)  --  JediLofty UserTalk 13:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  All of human knowledge 

message: The spoken version of this article differs significantly from the current text.  Should this be removed until updated?RaphytheTurtle (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  spoken 

message: I'd like to see a forum linked to Wikipedia for general discussions. I think it would fit in well. Place a "discuss" button at or near the top of every article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.214 (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. 

message: therefore I went to discussion.
to wikipedia:
you said that i could edit this article.actually,i cant because everytime i see the small lock on upper right corner that means i cant edit.96.235.133.35 (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  i could not edit this article? 

message: How do we put comments for answering questions? sorry, if im stupid but im new here.chessmate92 (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if I understood what you meant. If on a talk page then you just post it along with the answer, with some explanation. Or do you mean Wikipedia:Peer Review?--Faizaguo 09:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Try prepending ":" to your text. ffm 20:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Um comments? 

message: Why does "Wikipedia 1.0" forward here? There's nothing about Wikipedia 1.0 in the text and I'm wondering what it is. Dazjorz (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find out more about Wikipedia 1.0 (the published version of Wikipedia) by looking at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. — Wenli (reply here) 20:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 1.0 

message: Isn't it odd that an effort hasn't been made to bring this page to featured article status?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brancron (talk • contribs) 
:It has- this article has been nominated several times, and even was a featured article for a little while. However, the current belief is that it does not meet our standards for a featured article. J Milburn (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Question 

message: Hi, I'm trying to find out what led to the Wikipedia community's success in attracting admins? How did people get started as administrators, and what incentives are there for editors to become more involved? Any help would be much appreciated, --Tishadejmanee (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formation of the Wiki Community 

message: My friends and I (and most everyone I know) uses the term "wiki-rampage", "wikipedia rampage" or similar statements to denote the fact that one can link click on links to a chain of references so that one forgets the original topic he/she was pursuing. I think it deserves an article or something more prevalent in the definition of Wikipedia, as it is used more and more often as a tangible reference.
:Do you know any reliable source documenting this? (I don't mean to be sarcastic; I'm curious.) -- Taku (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki-rampage 

message: Over the last 2 days while I have been viewing various pages of wikipedia I have come across some sort of apparent hack. The articles of whatever page I was viewing have been replaced by total black, with various messages in white text by sombody known as "zodiac", as well as a code of some sort apparently including his social security number and a picture of a celtic style cross. I am extremely curious to know what exactly is known about this "zodiac" thing?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.24.27 (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just vandalism and nonsense. One of the prolific vandals is doing it, and to whatever templates are both relatively widely-used and unprotected, so that the vandalism appears on the maximum number of pages. It's being dealt with just as vandalism is usually dealt with: it's reverted, the user is blocked (and we don't bother to give warnings first when it's obviously one of these repeat vandals), and we usually protect the template from further vandalism. Then we go about as usual, we ignore them: giving them prominence would only encourage them to continue.  14:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zodiac, Wikipedia hack? 

message: I removed 
" In a 2008 interview, Jimmy Wales said that the foundation spent $2 million of donor money in 2007 toward site maintenance costs.Wales spent $2m of donor money to maintain Wikipedia The foundation shares hosting and bandwidth costs with Wikia, a for-profit company founded by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley. The Wikimedia Foundation received some donated office space from Wikia Inc. during the fiscal year ending June 30 2006. Wikimedia Foundation 2006–2007 Audit page 9 says "The Organization shares hosting and bandwidth costs with Wikia, Inc., a for-profit company founded by the same founder as Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Included in accounts receivable at June 30 2007 is $6,000 due from Wikia, Inc. for these costs. The Organization received some donated office space from Wikia Inc. during the year ended June 30 2006 valued at $6,000. No donation of the office space occurred in 2007. Through June 30, 2007, two members of the Organization's board of directors also serve as employees, officers, or directors of Wikia, Inc."
In The New York Times in March 2008, Wales discussed a possible trivia game based on Wikipedia.
from the paragraph it was pasted in. I think part of this text should (could) be reinserted in another paragraph, but probably not the same. Basically, most of that stuff belong to history now. I find a headtitle in this article "Wikimedia Foundation and Wikia" slightly misleading to say the least. Wikia has not done anything special for our project for the past 2 years, except for sponsoring Wikimania (and yet, we do not mention sponsors in that page). Historically speaking, it is interesting to note that Wikimedia Foundation received 6000 dollars worth for office space from Wikia in 2006, but does this information REALLY belong to the Wikipedia article ? I think not. Also, the paragraph still mentions that the Foundation shares hosting and bandwidth costs with Wikia, which is clearly incorrect. I think that unless people can prove that this is true, it does not belong to this page. 
Regarding the "possible trivia game", I think it is really a detail. Seriously, the Foundation staff (now operating the Foundation) is in charge of such decisions, not Jimbo. And the Foundation staff receive dozen of such proposals every month. What is really important in the long run ? What is really set up (eg, a DVD version, a print version etc...), or the mention that Jimbo thought a trivia game might be done, perhaps, one day, in the future, if such is decided by the staff and a good deal is proposed. 
Last, I decided to mention chapters. This is bold, in particular in the english version. But to be fair, some chapters have a serious influence on some languages (eg, the german chapter on the german wikipedia) and several have contributed serious money (FAR more serious than the 6000 dollars worth from Wikia). Not mentionning chapters but putting a headline about Wikia... seems to me to not be reflecting the reality of what is happening right now. 
Please discuss :-)
Anthere (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While what you did makes sense, I think it is important to note the connection between WIkipedia and Wikia, which is, well, none, zero, zilch, except that the two are creations of the same person. Many people simply don't know the distinction. Actually, I think this  represents one weakness of the current article: it doesn't really elaborate how Wikipedia is run, operationally. For example, Wikipedia asks for donation from time to time, and this isn't mentioned at all. The thing is I'm not knowledgeable in this area; in fact, I have never heard of Wikimedia chapters before. -- Taku (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Why just audio file? My dog ate my speakers! Thanks. 124.102.43.240 (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA pronunciation? 

message: A single line in the lede had a  tag placed on it by an editor with the edit summary: weasel wording!.  The line in question is:
:Scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived
To remove the weasel wording, with an edit summary of clarified scholarly work based on references supplied I changed it to:
:Massachusetts Institute of Technology/IBM and University of Minnesota studies suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived.
This got reverted with the edit summary: But the lead isn't a place to get into details; it is ok to give only a summary in the lead
I then removed the  tag with the edit summary of: then we need to remove the "Who? tag also. I was just responding to another editors request for clarification as to who said those things
The  tag was then reinserted with an edit summary of: weasel wording
Someone needs to give in,  either we need to clarify who wrote the scholarly works like my edit did or we don't but either way the  tag needs to come out. Jons63 (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd probably suggest looking for some published form of this research and citing it as a source. Just my two pence. AlexJFox (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 2 sources attached to the statement.  One by University of Minnesota and 1 from MIT/IBM.  I rewrote it to include who these sources are and it was reverted and then the who tag was reinserted.  Do we need to specify who it is if there are attached sources?  Jons63 (talk) 04:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say as long as you actually linked to a published report on the research and those links are in the right place in the article and foot notes are included if necessary then it's fine to include it. AlexJFox (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Wording 

message: We should change the picture of the Wikipedia to be the picture of the article itself, creating an infinite loop. I believe that the enormous power of Wikipedia would create a Wormhole, thus unlocking the key to time travel! People would then be able to travel through time by going to time travel article, or to the article on a past or future date. The only problem is that this might cause the Universe to implode. GBizzle (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point in theory, but Wikipedia is so powerful that I think the chances of the universe imploding is very great --Gokuslilbrother 20:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Picture 

message: Hilarious as the inclusion of 'recursion' in the See Also section is, it probably counts as a self-reference to avoid; not only is it inaccurate on a mirror of the article, it's likely to be confusing if readers don't know where the article origniated. Any objections if I remove it? Olaf Davis | Talk 20:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recursion 

message: On 9 august 2008 the Dutch version of wikipedia was censored officially by a moderator.  In the article nl:Lijst van vrijmetselaars uit België (list of Belgian freemasons) the history was partially deleted.  In recent months it was debated if living belgian freemasons were to be included in the list.  Because of worries for 'privacy' it was decided by the moderators only to include dead freemasons.  All living freemasons were strikken from the list.  After written conversation with the official Belgian 'commissie voor de bescherming van de persoonlijke levenssfeer', the official Belgian privacy commission, the history was censored and deleted were you could find historical edits of living freemasons.  After a request to publish the documents ordering this action, the moderator would only publish excerpts, and not the full letters of the government body.This proces was later repeated on the history of my personal page (in which i had copied everything nl:Gebruiker:Stijn_Calle).  So this amounts to self-sensorship done by wikipedia moderators themselves.
Note: Belgian privacy law is only applicable on Belgian territory.  The server of the dutch Wikipedia is not geographically situated in Belgium, but in the US or another country outside the US.  Thus Belgian law is not applicable on these servers.
Remark: Winston Smith's job in the ministery of truth (1984) was destroying past history and replacing it.  This is happening in Belgium ON wikipedia.  There is a name for this kind of action: censorship.--Stijn Calle (talk) 08:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Following local laws when it isn't absolutely necessary to do so isn't a crime (literally!); either way please don't disrupt the article. Your change didn't make sense in the article without understanding the context of your change, which isn't mentioned in the article. I therefore reverted it. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.  13:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self censorship