Talk:Main Page/Archive 71

message: Clicking 'newest articles' on the Main Page now brings me to Recent additions rather than to New pages. Clicking 'Archive' already has this function, so there's now two links doing the same, and none doing what I want it to. Why has this happened? Eixo 22:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is 'newest articles'? FellowWikipedian 23:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This first line in DYK, the one above the bulleted items. -- 199.71.174.100 03:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was recently changed. Discussion for this is underway at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#What "recent additions" links to. --Dhartung | Talk 05:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New pages

message: Very Anglo-Saxon centered today and not very interesting IMHO. Charles de Gaulle and the Three Gorges Dam could have given some balance. Piet 10:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anglo-Saxon centered ? Charles de Gaulle is scheduled to appear later this week. Three Gorges Dam was on ITN for quite a while last month. See also Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries#USA bias in Selected Anniverary. -- 64.229.204.28 14:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On this day. 

message: I propose "races" be quotemarked. Without the quotations, it implies support for the concept of multiple races. In my opinion, as the sentence begins with "under apartheid", using quotes would convey that that was the term employed by the regime of South Africa. "Ethnic groups" would be preferable, though, as it arguably avoids any POV. SoLando (Talk) 11:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Non sequitur much? — ceejayoz talk 04:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh? Ask the suppressed ethnic groups. -- 64.229.204.28 13:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The relevance of mentioning affirmative action is obscure. Though, hey, at least the two words instinctively prompts me to think of WP:BOLD. :-p SoLando (Talk) 14:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apartheid FP 

message: Who writes the main page?
:"They" do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evertype (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To clarify at Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ ? --64.229.224.72 16:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The admins do. FellowWikipedian 22:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author(s)? 

message: "An earthquake on the island of Java, Indonesia (location pictured) kills at least 6,200 people"
:Last time I saw this it was at 5,800! May the people rest in peace. Now it's 6,400!!!
♥Je me souviens♥
::Aw...i guess it's better to overestimate so that we don't have to cahnge it later ;) --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should change it up to the minute. FellowWikipedian 22:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earthquake 

message: The front page write-up on the apartheid beach table is really disgusting, it conveys apartheid is borderline normal or something like that. In fact apartheid has been classified in mandatory UN resolutions as evil and inherently criminal under international jurisdiction, which even wikipedia cannot ignore, since UN general assembly resolutions are delivered in the name of the entire mankind. Therefore apartheid must not be portrayed as "petty" or insignificant. Especially in the light of South Africa's planned negrocide in the Angola invasion (which was stopped only by cuban soldiers landing) and its amassing of atomic bombs for the purpose (with no little help from Dimona), we must say apartheid was en par with the Hitler's Third Reich.
I understand how the west and zionists want to suppress and lessen criticism and condemnation of apartheid regime, since USA and Israel were the main open and clandestine military backers of South Africa during the period of international sanctions, claiming anti-communism supercedes racial opression. Yet, if wikipedia emulates that, than wikipedia is no more than a cold-war propaganda megaphone. 195.70.32.136 15:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? dposse 16:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, 195.70.32.136. I still say the caption needs some amendments, but meh :-) SoLando (Talk) 16:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a par with the Third Reich? Yes, obviously beind denied access to the same beach as white Boers is every bit as bad as having half of your race exterminated in gas chambers etc. siarach 16:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the word 'Petty' is being misread here. I the context of the caption it is not translating as 'insignificant' but more like 'minor', as in the segregation of a beach is merely an annoyance compared to the larger, more major life-affecting laws that were coming into place during this time. Not being able to bathe on a particular stretch of coastline would have been nothing compared to the 'non-petty' apartheid such as those affecting education or employment. Lady BlahDeBlah 17:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Dismissing apartheid as whites not allowing blacks on their beaches is a gross demonstration of ignorance.  Go read the article and come back. — ceejayoz talk 04:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Is that to me or to the original comment? If me, then I'm sorry if it came out like that; I studied apartheid and similar regimes for quite some time during my school years. Lady BlahDeBlah 13:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Petty apartheid was the term in use at the time for these non-life-threatening forms of the policy. The picture seemed to symbolise it perfectly. I think it is mentioned in the article too, it should be. --Guinnog 16:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disgusting apartheid advocacy 

message: In contrast to DYK requirements, USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle B in DYK has no hook, is longish and full of technicalities. As a result of its inclusion, the template is too long and looks disproportionate. Please consider removal. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-interesting DYK 

message: The link in the Did you know boxe should link to newest article and not recent additions. Something should be done. Moonray 20:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above #New pages -- 199.71.174.100 21:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newest article 

message: Does anyone think it would be a good idea to place a clear portal to the Simple English
Wikipedia on the main page, allowing fast access to a simplified version of the encyclopedia?
:That is a good idea, and i agree. However, it's already been discussed and i think they turned down the idea. dposse 19:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple English

message: Hmm.  I thought Queen Elizabeth II was crowned.  I have never seen the form coronated, which would imply the existence of a verb "to coronate".  Sounds like a back formation from the event, coronation.  Maurice Fox 15:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already fixed. Empty your cache, please. -- 64.229.207.249 16:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that sounds fucking rude. --JohnO 23:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: how is it rude? dposse 00:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Needlessly using the word fucking is fucking fucking rude.  --Nelson Ricardo 00:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's JohnO being JohnO. Let's ignore him and his verbal abuse. Can unwanted comments of his like that be removed from this talk page and its edit history ? There's no point keeping them in the Archives, except to use them against him in future (e.g. at his RfA, etc.). -- 64.229.7.166 16:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you bating me?? I would never want to join the ranks of the prigs who request adminship. Maurice Fox made a simple comment highlighting an error on the main page. Instead of receiving thanks, he was chastised like an infant. As for "fucking rude," "fucking" was there too emphasise my shock at the response Mr 64.229.207.249 gave. Now, if I were to say, "make a real fucking ID Mr IP address", then, yes, "fucking" would be unnecessary. But in no fucking way should you judge my command of the English language. I intended to shock with its use - to highlight the shocking first response. Strong? Yes. Unnecessary? No. RfA? Don't make me piss my fu... flipping pants. --JohnO 08:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The use of profanity with the intent to shock ?  This is a deliberate violation of Wikipedia policy as per Wikipedia:Civility, probably a blockable offence, and should not be tolerated. 65.95.105.186 15:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Maurice Fox, you may want to check out Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. -- 199.71.174.100 19:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was what I wanted to point out. -- 64.229.230.17 15:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coronated or crowned? 

message: 2006 Super 14 Final on the main page is linking to Missionary Position!  Vladdraculdragon 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That act of vandalism by User:84.68.131.153 has just been reverted. -- 65.95.107.54 15:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 Super 14 Final 

message: :Moved to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. --15:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 3: On this day... 

message: Someone has vandalized the link to the Super-14 matches to Masonary Position.
:That act of vandalism by User:84.68.131.153 has just been reverted. -- 65.95.107.54 15:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism of "Did You Know?" feature? 

message: I have noticed that today at 11am the links got underlined. I prefer it the way it was as it is distracting all those lines. Please reply on my userpage. the southerner 15:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Emptying your cache and reloading should do the trick. BTW, this is not really related to the Main Page. Try the Village pump next time. -- 64.229.7.166 16:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link underlined? 

message: The top box on this (TMP) page says "This page is 88 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size."  Xojo 18:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just moved quite a bit to Archive 70. Should be okay for now. -- 199.71.174.100 19:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This just in . . . 

message: Shouldn't it be noted in the news section that 17 people were arrested in the Toronto Area for terrorism charges, with three times the amount of fertilizer (bomb-making substance)as used in the Oklahoma City Bombing?  It is alleged they were to blow up Toronto tourist highlights, like the CN Tower.  This is probably the biggest news of the day. (I'll start an article on it too; any ideas for a name?)  Theonlyedge 22:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Terrible Toronto Seventeen? --maru   (talk)  contribs 22:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's pretty funny...I've temporarily created the article June 2006 GTA terrorism arrests.  It really should be added. Theonlyedge 22:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just added to Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates & Current events. --199.71.174.100 02:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism Arrests 

message: Moved to Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors — ceejayoz talk 18:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I enjoyed reading those... :-) Carcharoth 21:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in ITN 

message: As far as I can see from the "Welcome to Wikipedia" intro, there are two introductions, one points to "Wikipedia:introduction" and one to "Welcome, newcomers". This seems redundant and confusing. Even if they are different in what they cover, most users will not make the distinction, and will ultimately click either, without any consideration to where it points to exactly. We, wikipedians might know the distinction, but we must keep in mind to look from the point of view of the people that might need the introduction. Msoos 18:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They do crosslink, though. — ceejayoz talk 19:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are there two introductions? 

message: Would it be good to make the word encyclopedia in the main title "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." linked to the wikipedia article?--Exander 21:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If encyclopedia links to anything then it should be encyclopedia. Linking one word to a completely different concept would just confuse people. --Cherry blossom tree 21:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, you mean the Wikipedia article on encyclopedia, don't you? Ignore that then. --Cherry blossom tree 21:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There are enough links in that section of the main page already. Also, all the other links are to items about Wikipedia and how to edit or browse it. A link to an "ordinary" article would be out of place.-gadfium 23:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, there are already a great number of links. Most people know what an encyclopedia is before finding Wikipedia anyway. -- Mithent 01:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make Encyclopedia a link 

message: The article is too grotesque to be on the main page, please change the article or at least take off the picture, thank you.--Andy 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monday, june 5th, 2006 featured article 

message: I've uploaded a new version of the picture. It's a minor change but it may be slightly less objectionable. If anyone likes it, feel free to use this version in the article. Shawnc 04:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative picture

message: I object to this disgusting, horrific krazy kat that is on the main page. Wocka-wocka-wocka! --Bobak 00:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention a Did You Know item about very outdated medical device for women with which to administer a poison to to them. What's going on here. The item is objectionable in my opinion. --Ancheta Wis 02:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything is poisonous; it's the dose that matters :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-06 04:16
* KK means nothing, krispy kreme and king kong both are KK and they are not white supremicists--Andy 02:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speaking of which

message: The devanagri version of hindi is spelt wrong.  It reads "Hanedee" rather than Hindi.   Seems like I can't edit it.
:That's because your computer may not be rendering Indic Devanagiri text properly. To  properly render complex Indic text, please see Wikipedia:Enabling complex text support for Indic scripts.--May the Force be with you!  Shreshth91(review me!) 08:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect spelling for Hindi in the Wikipedia Languages section 

message: Thought that this should be on the main page Peruvian national election, 2006. The second round was held yesterday (June 4) and Ollanta Humala has already conceded the election which means that former Peruvian President Alan Garcia is President-elect of Peru.--Jersey Devil 10:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An admin has suggested to wait at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Perhaps a discussion should go there. -- 199.71.174.100 13:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peruvian Election

message: Serbia has formally acknowledged the breakup of S&M: .  Perhaps the "in the news" item on Montenegro should be recast to announce the country's formal breakup? --Jfruh (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note that the word "independence" as used in the subhead of the BBC article ("Serbia has declared its independence...") is not correct and should not be carried over into any news items or articles on Wikipedia.  The text of the BBC article is correct; as a result of the declaration of independence by Montenegro, Serbia has acknowledged that it is a separate state and has declared itself the successor state of "Serbia and Montenegro," which seems logical and which the Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro explicitly gives it the right to do.  (I just read Article 60 of the Constitutional Charter to confirm this.)  One state declares its independence (after a referendum), the other becomes the successor state.  (This probably would have occurred without any vote by the Serbia parliament at all, but it makes sense that they would want to acknowledge what has occurred so that their official records explain why they aren't electing officials of the former unified government anymore, and things like that.)  This is significant because Serbia continues to be a member of the UN and continues to carry all the benefits and burdens of all international agreements.  Montenegro, on the other hand, must now "join the club" of sovereign nations, by applying for UN membership, signing on to various treaties, etc.  6SJ7 17:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, definitely true, but let's update the thing already.  Can anyone be bold and update the front page, or is there a consensus process for it? --Jfruh (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbia & Montenegro breakup 

message: In The News should be updated a lot faster, effort goes into updating articles for ITN so it would be nice if there was some quicker movement from admins. --Midnighttonight 04:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean. Do you think the Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates process is slow? I don't know much about it personally, but I wouldn't be prepared to use a very large portion of the candidates there, there is a lot to think about when putting items in ITN. If you mean there are facutal errors, put them on WP:ERRORS ❝Sverdrup❞ 15:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Article writers, especially of new articles, are welcome to place them on the Current events page. I don't think there's any requirement (or should be, given this is all a volunteer effort) that hte Main Page be updated instantaneously. What ends up on the Main Page ITN box is a selection of items that are of interest for longer periods of time and are somewhat balanced for systematic bias. --Dhartung | Talk 02:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITN 

message: For some reason the link on the front page for the Battle of Normandy isn't working - in the "on this day..." box Sotakeit 16:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page was moved by a vandal a few minutes ago, but has now been moved back. Clearing your browser's cache should fix it. — sjorford++ 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of Normandy

message: I think the pic is too gross for a main page pic. Its an intestine polyp.. yuck ... andrewkeith80 08:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, without the accompanying text it's pretty hard to work out what the picture is of. Anyways, DYK is due for another update any time now and the picture'll be gone. See also Wikipedia is not censored, blah blah etc. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The preferred term is "squicky."  —David Levy 11:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gone, replaced with a nice Polish gentleman, but there's a toothbrush waiting in the wings ... so for those of a nervous disposition, look away now. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: People are more cranky on Mondays.... -- 64.229.176.142 17:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did you know > double-balloon enteroscopy > picture of polyp a bit gross 

message: This is false information. Muhammed simply completed the message of delivering the message of Islam to the world. Before Muhammed , there were many other prophets of God such as Adam, Ibrahim (Abraham), Isa (Jesus) etc. Please correct this piece of misinformation
*Thanks.  I've changed it to "the leader of the Islamic community".--Pharos 09:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Turtles all the way down .... --Dhartung | Talk 22:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This discussion is best left for the Muhammad chat. However I disagree. From a purely historical view point you could just as easily say the people around Muhammad were the founders of Islam not Muhammad himself. If we state that Muhammad is the founder of Islam, then we would have to claim that Jesus Christ is the founder of Christianity and probably other things that I can't think about at the moment. And eventually all this would just get out of hand. I see from the discussion in the Muhammad article that there appear to be various fairly neutral statements that have been suggested so I personally don't see the need to continue to push the view that we should state Muhammad is the founder of Islam on the main page. NB not that this is important but I'm agnostic. Nil Einne 18:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am pretty sure that Mohammed is the founder of Islam as we know it. Claiming that prior prophets belong to your group does not change that. --72.13.168.149 03:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammed is not the founder of Islam 

message: Perhaps: "Wikipedia-links: the world to gather"? Verrekijker 10:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To gather what?  User:Zoe|(talk) 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New theme 

message: The Page should be better surfable bei the keyboard, because it is faster, like:
 like the cursor should be in the search field when you access the page or when you found a page.
 it would be nice, that after you searched for some word sou could instandly tab through the available
 posible pages.
 Or to have some shutcuts to make browsing faster
That is just a
: We do have some keyboard shortcuts already, for example, ALT+X for random page, ALT+R for recent changes, ALT+Z for main page, ALT+E for edit, and so on. These work in all pages, not just the Main Page – Gurch 14:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation 

message: For this we crash the servers? :-) Skittle 14:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly an unprecedented flood of reporters trying to get to the press release ;) Raul654 15:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references ?  What the critics say is not that important, though. We manage ourselves here. --64.229.176.142 17:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I think about it, I am actually a bit sad that we didn't have a Wikipedia:One thousand featured articles pool. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FA growth is almost exactly one per day. Everyone's guesses would fall within the same week :) But it's never too soon to start Wikipedia:One million featured articles pool Raul654 18:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: PS - put me down for May 11, 5247. Raul654 18:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  * Insider trading! Illegal! ;) --Monotonehell 22:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, what I really meant to say is that I consider this more important than most other  milestones, even if it was a bit predictable. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So, this really just highlights that out of  articles, only 1,000 are "comprehensive, factually accurate, and written from a neutral point of view."  What does this say about the other articles?  --Nelson Ricardo 18:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Assessment scale. Articles don't have to be featured to be worthy. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: (in after edit conflict) That's not strictly true. It means that of  articles, only 1,000 are at the same time "comprehensive, factually accurate, and written from a neutral point of view." and also have someone who cares enough to nominate them for FA, and to satisfy the various other demands of the FAC crowd. They include, among other criteria, being well-written, good layout, not too many fair use images, a lot of rock solid inline citations, and being neither too long nor too short. An article needs much more than being "comprehensive, factually accurate, and written from a neutral point of view." to get FA status. Also, I certainly don't see why going out of our way to hide the undisputable fact that a pretty large percentage of our content is shoddy helps anything. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-08 21:09
What was the code for that bar thing that said "Wikipedia thanks its contributors for writing 1000 featured articles? I need it for the WarWiki. (That was not a spam. I seriously need it). --Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 20:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Check out the page history for Template:Main Page banner Raul654 20:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1000 featured articles

message: The blurb for today's featured article says: Wisconsin ... currently functions as a museum ship at the Nauticus National Maritime Center in Norfolk, Virginia. Wisconsin ... is currently awaiting donation for use as a museum ship. The article says this, too. I don't understand - is she a museum ship now, or will she become a museum ship? - Brian Kendig 04:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She functions as a museum ship now, but the navy still legally owns her. At the moment she is set to be legally donated to a museum association for use as a perment museum piece. More info on this can be found on Wisconsin’s talk page TomStar81 00:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Museum ship? 

message: The current mark-up language (linebreaks mine):
 The English-language Wikipedia thanks its contributors for writing 
 <a href="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_Announces_Thousandth_Featured_Article" class='external text'
 title="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_Announces_Thousandth_Featured_Article">one thousand featured articles</a>.
This is awful! It uses the deprecated font tag which will make the main page fail validation. It also hardcodes fonts, which I frown upon (all other fonts in the Monobook skin use "sans-serif" as font to ensure that people can choose which font they want to use).
Please change it into this:
 The English-language Wikipedia thanks its contributors for writing
 <a href="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_Announces_Thousandth_Featured_Article" class='external text'
 title="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_Announces_Thousandth_Featured_Article">one thousand featured articles</a>.
It would make the text use the default font (which is "sans-serif") while still being valid XHTML. —Michiel Sikma 「Gebruiker/Overleg」 08:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? This request has been ignored for some time... —Michiel Sikma 「Gebruiker/Overleg」 18:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, seems that it was done. I thought that it hadn't since nobody left a message on this page. But thanks! Looks fine now. —Michiel Sikma (Bekijk me of praat met me) 18:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix up HTML of 1000th featured notification 

message: Hi,
  I found the following in the main page:
" ..that Reverend William Mitchell was an Anglican missionary, and the first ordained 
 person to provide religious services in the Swan Valley area ... " 
The words "religious services" should not be used in this context as there are many
religions including the religions of australians before the westerners came to 
Australia. The right use should be "christian religious services". 
As I cannot edit the main page myself, I request you to attend to this.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.54.176.109 (talk • contribs) .
:Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: religious services

message: Wikipedia exercises bias and is slanted towards 'negative western popular beleif'. The practices are reminiscent to totalitarian propagandists, that censor any information that challenges their political beleifs. I would not trust this source of information due to it's editors 'gang' mentality. As well as their 'removal' of information outright without valid reason. Their ignorance of misifnormation and pop culture facts that are not 'truthful' place the validity of this site as anything more then a popular medium is certain. This site is more about politics then it is about spreading truthful information. The systems used to catagorize information are often 'discriminatory' especially in favour of western practices and Eurocentric and American-Centric bias. The most severe practices are outright deletion much like ftp deleters, and claiming information is 'nonsense' or 'original': where the first is an outright attack without valid reason and the second is plainly political for not liking or agreeing with what is stated without giving any valid reason. "All comments are original interpretations of other information." Where something is completely derived or self sourced then it is understood to be 'original sourced'. However, in the case of an article being composed from excerpts of something else, it is no more original then other works, thus disputable; however outright deletion with no reasoning other then stating an item is original, in the case of using a source document. Such practices are false practices. The censoring done by wikipedia is common practice, and appears to be politically motivated. I would not use this source for any unbiased works, as this is an extermely biased and censoring site. Don't let the anyone can edit or contribute line at face value. Many times any additions to the information pages are removed, often without any reason other then personal attacks or 'incorrect' editing, in the form of falsely stating something is something that it isn't such as the case of original works. This site politically censors, not for information validity reasons, but for political reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.167.147 (talk • contribs) 
:If you don't like it don't read it. AllanHainey 11:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bias you note is due primarily to the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  Encyclopedias report on the current state of human knowledge.  When some portion of the truth is not an established part of this knowledge then an encyclopedia is not the appropriate place to first add new nuggets of the truth.  In the case of Wikipedia the limitation is primarily due to the fact that the community has no effect method of performing independent fact checking and thus must rely on other reputable publishers to perform this crucial effort before information can reasonably be considered to be part of human knowledge. --Allen3 talk 12:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you give any examples of pages or information being deleted without a valid argument? If so, I'm sure the deletions can be reviewed and reverted without too much trouble. Note that all pages should follow WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. If the articles in question violated one or more of these policies, deletion was probably warranted. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 12:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What does this have to do with the Main page, which is what this Talk page is for?  User:Zoe|(talk) 16:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It sounds like you have an issue with particular points in particular articles, which you're then projecting onto all of Wikipedia (and everyone editing it, by extension). Wikipedia is a broad collection of people with -- and I guarantee this -- at least as many points of view. Part of the challenge of using or editing Wikipedia is understanding this and working with it as a fact of life. I will note that I have seen, or worked on, articles where there was a strong anti-American or -Western bias evident. But I have also seen people argue that they see bias where most people see a neutral description, simply because they can't bear to see their pet topic treated objectively. In any case, if you have been told that your contributions are original research, then it's your responsibility to show the editors challenging what you have written by providing verifiable sources that the article can properly cite, so that future editors and readers can be assured that the information isn't just the opinion of an individual editor. It is harder than writing by yourself, that is very clear, but when you are successful in a community of people in producing an article of excellent quality, the satisfaction is accordingly high. --Dhartung | Talk 18:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia's Bias

message: Sorry to be a fuss pot, but as the 1,000 articles have already been created, surely it should read as a thankyou "for having created 1,000 articles". I just thought that I might bring it up Lofty 15:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar/wording

message: Can we put something in the Main Page Current Events section about net neutrality?  Its of vested interest to all of us, and we need to make sure that the discussion is available to those who come looking for it (and even those who arent looking for it, thus the CE addition request).  I think that the HoR defeat last night provides enough media coverage to justify it.
:Sorry a little more context and hints for those of us ignorant, please. --Monotonehell 18:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant article doesn't appear to have been updated.  Please make sure the ITN criteria have been met before suggesting candidates on the appropriate page. Thanks, BT 20:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Net Neutrality 

message: I've noticed a lot of traffic on this page is caused by people misunderstanding the purpose of the ITN section on the main page. ITN is not WikiNews. Would renaming the header help? That is if we can think of a better, more explanitory title. Something like "Current events" (where it links to already); "Articles in the news"; "Current affairs"; "Hot items" ; "Hot articles"; "In flux"; "Happening now"; "Ronald the hampster" (Okay not the last one. These suck a bit, just throwing a few out there) --Monotonehell 18:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITN rename?