Talk:Main Page/Archive 82

message: I think the front page summary of the FA Premier League article concerntrates on small details while ignoring far more important ones. A big deal is made over the specifics of who has won it, when and how many times, yet no mention is even made of the fact that it "is the world's most watched sporting league and most lucrative football league, followed by over a billion people". Canderra 00:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA League article misses the points. 

message: After considerable discussions , Swedish Wikipedia added a search box on the front page, in addition to the one already existing in the margin. This, in my opinion, dramatically increases usability of the page, as the search box is where you would expect it to be. (Compare http://www.google.com, http://www.susning.nu, http://www.ne.se, http://www.answers.com, http://www.eniro.se plus whatever online encyklopedia or search engine you can think of) The Swedish design doesn't take up much space, and it draws attention to Wikipedia's main tool, the search tool. I think a change would help unexperienced Wiki users to find their way. What do you think? ????Axelve 21:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This idea was heavily discussed earlier this year, resulting in no consensus.  Some people believe that a redundant search box would be helpful to new users, while others believe that it would confuse and distract them.  Complaints also arose regarding the aesthetics, with notations of the fact that the "Classic" skin already features the search box at the top.  —David Levy 22:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: True, but if it works, it's not broken.  How many more do we need??82.152.210.126 13:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search box on front page 

message: Hi I have noticed a gap between the main title Welcome and Wikipedia today and I think it looks better. However I strongly suggest that whilst the content of the main page is 95% always very good, I suggest you seriously tart up the design of the main page. I suggest a bolder title. Look at the logo, Wikipedia is capitalized. Also weak colours are used which do not make the page stand out. As the main page of the biggest website in the world I think it needs work on by a computer graphics designer- what can be done is amazing. I feel that a stronger colour, bolder page will attract people. mean the title of the project is barely larger than the writing. I would like to see Wikipedia in a MUCH larger bolder font. Whilst you should never judge a book by its cover people are responsive to visual stimuli. Please let me know your thoughts Ernst Stavro Blofeld 07:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Is there some way to make the Main Page look better? --64.229.225.30 13:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that what color is the best color for wikipedia to use is all a personal preference, as I greatly prefer a soothing blue and gray to a bold and brilliant red or yellow, or even a neutral green.  But bolding would probably be okay. The Disorganized Perfectionist 15:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title page gap

message: In the German language WP, there are 3 pages, where the users can name their favorite books, songs or movies (as subpages of user pages):
*:de:Benutzer:Louie/Wikipedia Cinedom movies
*:de:Benutzer:Southpark/Auf dem Nachttisch books
*:de:Benutzer:Achim Raschka/Soundtrack der Wikipedianer songs
Is there an equivalent in the English language WP? --Abe Lincoln 15:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try WP:VP. --64.229.204.84 15:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that 64.229.204.84 is suggesting that you to pose your question at the Village Pump.  --hydnjo talk 20:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I already got it, ;-) Thanks... --Abe Lincoln 21:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These pages can be found at User:Phaedriel/Soundtrack_of_Wikipedians and the many pages that link from there. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 22:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You may want to complain at the talkpage of the article in question. --PFHLai 16:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Favorites

message: What I want to know is...what is the point of having the editing symbol as in option??? I mean anyone could just delete the page and decided to type 'blah blah blah' across the entire page!!! Why don't the people who made this website have an email address that people can email information or mistakes to so that the founders of this website can change it??? I mean I could just delete the entire knowledge of Wikipedia and it won't be "The Free Encyclopedia" anymore!!!
151.200.31.58 19:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very easy to revert your blanking (or other acts of vandalism) while allowing other people to improve the content. -- 199.71.174.100 20:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that 151.200.31.58 is pulling our leg (which  is better I suppose than pulling our finger).  --hydnjo talk 21:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was assuming that it wasn't trolling. --199.71.174.100 22:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're going to blank 1.5 million articles before one of the thousand plus admins can block you? --172.193.83.216 23:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, here's how it works.  You spread around a worm or virus or something that nobody notices because it does nothing harmful to their computer -- it just spreads itself.  However, the virus is actually a web browser on a timer that would automatically go straight to wikipedia, go to random page, go to edit, then blank it, and that's it, and have it so that each copy does it at exactly the same time, and have the date set for a year or so in the future, so that a zillion people all have it.  That's how!.... oh... wait... every single bit would still be reverted after... an hour or so.  Also it'd probably ddos the server, forgot about that...--Anaraug 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Even so, it's mirrored on so many other pages to make deleting only Wikipedia itself not enough to get rid of all the contributions.  You'd have to target Answers.com and all the others as well. Still, The "Biggest Blog In History" thing yesterday did make me wonder how much of the current stuff on the internet will survive the next 50 years or so.  Anything can happen really I suppose, the whole of MySpace may be deleted(!), everyone's webmail cleared, Wikipedia could go.  It's not like anyone's going to break the internet in one swoop but individual sites could quite easily go.  Let's just hope there are enough back ups and whatnot to stop this from happening. Jellypuzzle | Talk 08:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I read well the first post, we should be more worried about someone writing "blah blah blah" all over wkipedia (and all the mirrors, etc.) than of someone just deleting it. That would be awful. Is the NSA aware of that?--SidiLemine 11:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the Point??? 

message: Today's featured article has no image appropriate for the main page. What if we added a smaal image, about two lines tall of the featured article star, just for the appearence? --Alexignatiou 13:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's such tragedy; it's a court case after all, not a children's book hehe.--cloviz 13:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could use the Australian coat of arms, much like coats of arms and flags are often used for ITN when no image is available. —Cuiviénen 13:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No image <sub>(well, you can say "duh")</sub> 

message: I think we need a link at the bottom of the page for the over +100,000 articles in a language.  Octopus-Hands 09:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is that each section is about equal in length. It makes little difference otherwise where the divides are. —Cuiviénen 16:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia languages section

message: Hey there,
Can you please add this reference to the arabic wikipedia main page? ar:الصفحة الرئيسية..
Thanks
--Lord Anubis 20:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion above (Talk:Main Page#Interwikis revisted) reached the conclusion that only Wikipedias with more than 20,000 articles would be included. You can comment on it there. —Cuiviénen 01:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin, Please add this 

message: I find this entry on "On This Day" select anniversaries to be inappropriate. "Al-Quds Day" is not a religious or historical event, but a political one. Although a unique fact, I don't think it is fitting for a purpotedly unbiased Wikipedia to display this as it may violate WP:NPOV in several ways. Its like neo-Nazis parties calling for an "Adolf Hitler Day" and Wikipedia recognizing it as a legitimate anniversary. The specifically propaganda-based celebrations of ideological regimes are not legitimate anniversaries worthy of the mainpage. Rama's arrow 00:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Columbus Day is also considered politically controversial because it celebrates the massacre of Native Americans by Europeans. We still acknowledge it to be a holiday, as it is celebrated in most of North America. Like it or not, the holiday is celebrated in Iran (and the event it commemorates is historical, though the attitude is not positive). "Adolf Hitler Day" would make it onto the Main Page if there was a country that celebrated it. We report the facts, including the unpleasant ones. —Cuiviénen 01:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What would be a POV is to judge the validity of anniversaries by the regime that suggested them. People in the world have different concepts of what is good and what is evil; here we just present facts. We don't even say that nazis are bad, that's an opinion. Perhaps you thought that having the anniversaries there was a way to celebrate it ourselves?--cloviz 01:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll find this day is international(International Day of Quds), if you look at google news. So why do you write "Al-Quds Day in Iran".--Sa.vakilian 05:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also I should say it isn't be limited to Muslims , it includes non-Muslims like Anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews. I guess only zionists oppose it.--Sa.vakilian 05:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Why? Because the Main Page used to link to the Al-Quds Day page. You should know this, Sa.vakilian, you merged that page into the International Day of Quds page.  How 'international' is this observance?  Not everyone is antisemitic like that. Not everyone listens to Ayatollah Khomeini, who created this 'political holiday'. If you really think "International Day of Quds" is a better term to use, try WP:ERRORS. --64.229.179.173 12:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Jerusalem Day was at the same spot on the Main Page on that day. Why not Al-Quds Day today? --64.229.179.173 13:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: To me the problem is that such mentions in the other sections may be pushing a POV with symbolism and subtlety - stuff like Columbus Day is about a particular moment in history when Columbus discovered the American continent. But "Al-Quds Day" is for those who believe in the view of "Israeli occupation." Its a political order of Khomeini, as opposed to a cultural observance of Muslims. Another key question is - does Wikipedia "equally" project the opposing POV, in order to balance it out? The article may do so, but what about just the mainpage? I don't know - I do feel its inappropriate to give such events "main page" prominence. Rama's arrow 15:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: And trust me, I'm no fan of mild censorship. If the article on F*** becomes an FA, it can have its day on the mainpage. My sole point of concern is WP:NPOV. Rama's arrow 15:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You see, we're not endorsing the celebration. That does not stop the fact that it exists, and the article does indicate, with sources, that it is a day of some significance in Iran, even if government-enforced. Is there an Israeli "Return" day, or something similar? I would not be surprised that, if there is, we have that at OTD when it occurs. —Cuiviénen 00:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what's your concept of NPOV, Arrow. As far as I know, considering anti-Semitism bad is a point of view. You suggest that we judge the holidays by the person that created them and her intentions? "This one was proposed by a guy we consider evil, therefore it's not valid"; that doesn't sound NPOV to me. In my opinion if a celebration is suggested by the devil himself and many people follow it, then it deserves mention.--cloviz 01:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the clovized-hoofed one said. ;) The idea that if you recognise something you support it, is just as problematic as not recognising it. At Wikipedia we have to try to present the readers with just the facts so they can make up their own minds, no matter what our personal opinions are. --Monotonehell 04:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Israeli occupation is a view, and, as much as I'd prefer to be able to say otherwise, a valid view.  If someone wanted to say that this or any other holiday was inappropriate because it's about anger, violence, and hate, that I could support. --Badger151 06:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Israeli occupation is not a view, that's a fact, you can verify that Israelies do indeed occupy that area. The view is whether said occupation is right or wrong. If certain peoples observe a partcular day, that's a fact, the view is whether that observence is inappropriate or not. Just the facts please. --Monotonehell 10:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the key word was 'occupation'. Another POV is that west bank and gaza strip are Israeli territories occupied by arabs. Another POV is that there are no Israelis, that Israel doesn't exist and cannot occupy anything. TRWBW 12:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrmz, true, but "occupation" can have two different meanings in this context. Occupation as in currently possesing a place, or a military occupation of invasion and control. Perhaps we need a more specific word that can't be interpreted as POV? --Monotonehell 12:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite what my earlier post might have implied, I have no problem with using the terms Israel or Occupied Territories or whatever. There are no terms that are going to make everyone happy, and the the point of wikipedia isn't to decide who is right or wrong, but to explain the conflict. The best way to do that is to not worry about this name or that but express, in whatever language, what's going on. Unfortunately, in my experience, on controversial subjects the wikipedia model breaks down. People with agenda eventually exhaust people who want the articles to be NPOV. But props to those out there fighting the good fight. TRWBW 13:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg your pardon - I should have been clearer.  Yes, Israel occupies land in that it exists on that land.  I took that as given.  The validity of Israel itself is debated, as is the validity and nature of its occupying the land that it now occupies; this is what I meant to refer to.  I hope that this has not distracted people form my main point, which was that I have a problem with basing the appropriateness of a holiday on who celebrates it, but have no problem in finding holidays which are based on anger, hate, and/or violence to be inappropriate.--Badger151 07:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should try to decide if a holiday is appropriate or inappropriate. Hitler's Birthday is celebrated around the world, by people I don't like and for reasons that offend me. But I think the fact that it is celebrated is enough to justify mentioning it, and to stick to a balanced approach that both expresses the beliefs of those who celebrate it and those who are disgusted by it. TRWBW 00:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Quds Day 

message: I think we should mention the simple english version of wikipedia at the top of the main page, why?
Well, not only does it need ALOT of work, but i think it should be for children or people who find wikipedia, to difficult to read. what do you think?
I think it should say something like: "Wikipedia too difficult to read? Then go to the Simple English wikipedia".
Pece Kocovski 07:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that insulting our users is good. "Wikipedia too difficult to read" indeed. 80.41.221.252 09:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can not countenance any belief that Wikipedia's verbosity in lexicon excels the comprehension of the proletariat. --Monotonehell 10:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I request that you utilize preciseness of language. I do not comprehend what is meant by your mentioning of others' ability or lack thereof being "excelled" by the lexicon that is ubiquitous in Wikipedia. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I forgot to use the sarcasm mark^ ;) --Monotonehell 04:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's okay. It should be obvious. But shouldn't "can not" be "cannot"? --65.95.152.231 18:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Pece in principle, but not the part about making it so prominent on Main Page. Most articles in English Wikipedia do not have a counterpart in Simple English Wikipedia. Making the interwiki to Simple English Wikipedia more prominent in the individual articles in English Wikipedia may be a simpler way to do this. Right now, the interwiki in the regular English Wikipedia to the Simple English Wikipedia appears as "Simple English" along with the rest of the interwikis. Maybe we can replace this by an italicised line at the top of the article in the regular English Wikipedia, with a link to the article in Simple English Wikipedia, in a format similar to the line used for disambiguation. -- 64.229.177.64 13:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No. Not even if the Simple English Wikipedia were more than what it is currently: a hopeless collection of vandalized stubs. It's truly one of the absolute worst editions of Wikipedia. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 14:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There's some merit in that, possibly instead the lead paragraphs of all en.wp articles should be in "simple" english, covering the material in the article breifly. --Monotonehell 04:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now there's a sensible idea. Bazza 11:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think that's brilliant, particulalry since the lead paragraph is supposed to be an encapsulation of the article, boiling it down to its essence.  It may turn out to be labour intensive in the short run, as we'd have to review the header paragraph of each article, but I don't think that's something to hold against it. --Badger151 17:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Me? Sensible? What? ;) --Monotonehell 12:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple will hopefully explode in usage with the arrival of single-login. -Quiddity 01:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer to put my money on the arrival of non-condescending articles that don't sound like they were written for children. -Elmer Clark 02:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple English Wikipedia 

message: This is galling! Remove restricted access to Special:Statistics for all link on that page. Especially this one Detailed tables and charts of Wikipedia statistics. Thank you. --193.77.234.248 08:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be fooled, the server error doesn't mean what it sounds like. As far as I can tell the entire stats server is offline. Must be some maintainence or a large problem with the Kennisnet Cluster, but I don't have anything to do with it so I can't shed any light on the problem. Either way exclaiing on thispage won't help. This is a meta.wikimedia.org issue. I guess we must simply wait until the tech guys sort it out. --Monotonehell 11:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: The kind of 'Todays Article' we see on the page on a daily basis can actually have a category and by choosing our preferences (i.e. for the users ) if can choose which kind of article they should be choosing..It will be gud
:You can do this by choosing to enter Wikipedia through one of the Portals, which choose their own selected articles. Some update these choices more often than others, though. Alternatively, you can keep Wikipedia:Featured articles bookmarked and simply read through one featured article of your own choosing every day. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Content. 

message: The CSS absolute positioning doesn't seem to be working as expected - it's overlapping other parts of the header on Safari. Any bright ideas?
:I'm not in front of an apple right now so I can only guess but how about now? ;) --Monotonehell 03:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No change. I just checked while logged out, though, and it actually showed up correctly - it looks as though this depends on some property of Monobook which isn't present in Cologne Blue, not something browser-specific. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the same problem when I look at it in Cologne Blue in Firefox. The template positions at the bottom of the first visible screen (round about the top of the archive box on my monitor) rather than at the bottom of the page. --Cherry blossom tree 12:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Main Page discussion footer]] 

message: "Pages about Wikipedia" as one of the types of pages excluded from the article count is ambiguous. Of course, the average reader would probably interpret it as meaning any article in the Wikipedia namespace, but Wikipedia contains encyclopedic information while being about Wikipedia! I realise, of course, that special pages cannot be edited; just pointing this out. Littleghostboo[ talk ] 08:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, where on the Main Page is this? I can't find it. --64.229.177.159 21:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Click on the "X articles in English" link. Littleghostboo[ talk ] 10:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Does this look better? Titoxd(?!?) 01:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest changing it to "all articles in the Wikipedia namespace" or something similar, as not all pages in the Wikipedia namespace refer to Wikipedia administration (many fall under other categories, e.g. humour, essays) Littleghostboo[ talk ] 10:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't like the word "namespace". I won't mean a lot to most people. enochlau (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Special:Statistics]]

message: The Afghan army logo is floating up to a story unrelated to it; but since it could be a corporate logo, this is not obvious. Time to find a new logo: doesn't the bank (now the lead story) have one? JCScaliger 12:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bank's logo has copyright; we can't put it in the main page.--cloviz 12:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Flag of Nicaragua would work, too. That headline about abortions and elections in Nicaragua is just beneath the image. -- 64.229.206.100 12:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Could we either move the news bullet about the Afghan Army to the top of the list or have the picture lower in the list where the relevent bullet is? Koweja 13:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Instead of moving things around, i suggest using smaller fonts for "(pictured)" to make this slightly more eye-catching. --64.229.229.195 14:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In the News

message: Where is the link to Arabic wikipedia in the main page at the bottom under the title more than 10 000 articles?
--62.139.172.43 20:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire 10k+ line is gone, not just the link to Arabic Wikipedia. --64.229.177.159 20:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The link to Arabic wikipedia ... and other wikipedias with 10k+ articles

message: It's mentioned on MSN.co.uk that Muffin, the first British children's TV hit character, turns 60 today. Is it worth mentioning this milestone under today's events? - NP Chilla 11:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion, but no stubs, please. How about October 30#Events instead? --64.229.223.132 14:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just done it. Thanks for the suggestion. - NP Chilla 22:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Muffin the Mule]] 

message: *ar:الصفحة الرئيسية
*yo:Main Page
-- Qasamaan 12:21; 30 October, 2006 (UTC)
: Only Wikipedias with at least 20,000 articles are included. See #Where are the interwiki links? and #The link to Arabic wikipedia ... and other wikipedias with 10k+ articles above. 
: ar is close, at 19586 according to m:List of Wikipedias. Has it just passed the 20k mark? Congratulations! --64.229.223.132 14:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arabic is currently over 19,500 and appears likely to pass 20,000 soon.  Yoruba's current total of 55 articles falls well short of the mark and barring very rapid growth is unlikely to be listed on the English language Main Page anytime soon. --Allen3 talk 15:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Interwikis

message: Why did the font for Wikipedia get really smaal. Please change it back o normal. And can someone explain what happened?
:Maybe it was your browswer? Sometimes if you hold Ctrl and scroll, the font size of the page changes. You can fix it back though by scrolling back. Nishkid64 01:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Font

message: While it may seem silly to place a category on the Main Page it does seem logical to me, I propose adding :Category:Wikipedia community as in essence the Main Page is a community page :) -- opinions? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Main Page defies categorization – Gurch 16:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :Category:Main Page makes more sense to me. --64.229.230.189 14:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  addition of a category.. 

message: i can't find this anywhere, and i just need to know -- what's with the white stripes being the main page image? i mean, the image always sitting in the top left that links to the main page. it's been like this for a few days and i don't get it. --dan 20:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: okay it's gone back to the normal picture now, so crisis averted. i'm still curious what that was all about though. --dan 21:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  white stripes 

message: Have any of use wondered, why does wikipedia keep the whole history of articles, even the bits that contain vandalism, i mean isn't that a waste of space. why not just keep the good history, not the bad history. To me, its seems like a stupid idea to include bad history.
Pece Kocovski 09:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Partly to maintain the transparency of the system and the accountability of individual editors -- once we allow people to easily remove edits from page history, we lose transparency, which means it's more difficult to hold people accountable for their edits. Edits which do need removal should see requests for oversight. Luna Santin 09:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Its not really a waste of space either.  Text uses very, very little disk space on Wikipedia, at least compared to the images and other media. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 11:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And who judges what's good, and what's bad? Bazza 11:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Decider, of course! — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 11:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he doesn't decide over good and bad. Only what's best.--SidiLemine 11:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It's also useful to keep track what "bad users" do. Repeat offenders can be more easily identified. And sometimes, things get removed by mistake. Keeping the 'complete' history makes it easy for anyone to restore old stuffs afterwards. --64.229.205.180 13:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why keep the bad history as well? 

message: The following site uses wikipedia's layout without permission:
http://gtfoutsider.com/wikisider/index.php?title=Alan
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.144.248.198 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 2006 November 4 (UTC).
:This is allowed and common, so long as they don't use Wikipedia logos. They are using the free (as in liberty) MediaWiki software that powers Wikipedia and numerous other wiki websites. —Centrx→talk • 07:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For more information on this, please see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. --PFHLai 17:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really - the linked site is neither a mirror nor a fork.  It is simply one of many sites running on the Mediawiki code and using the Monobook theme, both of which are released for use under the GPL license. — ceejayoz talk 23:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ooops. None of our content is used. My mistake there. Thanks, ceejayoz. --PFHLai 03:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia clone site 

message: Can you consider adding a purge link like this after the number of articles? Sometimes the count isn't accurate.
 articles in English ()
--67.124.38.149 01:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, I think <shift>-F5 will accomplish the same thing - on IE and Firefox anyway.  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Is it really necessary to have an up-to-the-second count?  I don't like the idea of having a "wipe the cache on the most viewed page on the entire website (with all its templates, too)" button readily available. — ceejayoz talk 02:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On average, several articles are created every few seconds, with a somewhat slower rate of deletion as the new page patrol and deletion debates sort through new pages.  It would thus be quite odd if the number at Special:Statistics was exactly the same as this number () by the time you clicked on it, simply due to the constant flux. - BanyanTree 02:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: User:67.124.38.149, may I suggest getting an account and putting the purge link on your own user page ? You can bookmark your userpage and use it as "your customized MainPage". -- PFHLai 06:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a purge link 

message: So, since this is obviously is going to come up tomorrow, what do we do about it? Do we wait until results begin to come in, report on "important" races,  or provide a link to the relevant article, a la World Cup? Titoxd(?!?) 18:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See on-going discussion at Template talk:In the news#U.S. Congressional elections. --64.229.230.71 20:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hell no we shouldn't mention it.  It's taking place in the United States.  Don't you think the conch shell collectors union strike in Karibati is more important?  If not, you must be biased.  --Descendall 01:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Biased? The bias is shown in not including Nicaraguan general election, 2006 on ITN. Daniel Ortega is President again, which was also yesterday's news. How come Tajikistan is chosen over Nicaragua? --64.229.222.233 14:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you think the Nicaraguan general election, 2006 article is updated well enough, please draft a headline and submit it at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. --PFHLai 17:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How long is Wikipedia going to celebrate the Democrat takeover of Congress? Haizum 22:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US election 

message: I hope this is the right place to ask, but I have a quick question. I am a regular contributer to the articles such as Holden Commodore, Holden VN Commodore, etc. I originally had promotional images on each of these articles but they have since been removed. These images were only there temporarily until free images could be found. But then I came across the website richardlewis.is-a-geek.com/, who releases his work under the Creative Commons. The images I want to use are under the page richardlewis.is-a-geek.com/pictures/thumbs/commodore.htm. Would it be O.K. to use these? I have E-mailed the site owner, but am unsure if this will be enough. Regards OSX 06:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The copyright on most of the images on that page are not owned by the owner of the web page. I am pretty sure that the creative commons license used "Non-Commercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes." is not free engoug to be used on wikipedia and can only be used as fair use.--Clawed 07:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Creative Commons images under an NC or ND license are not allowed, at least not without an accompanying fair use rationale. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 08:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Any further questions? Try Wikipedia:Help desk. --64.229.225.25 15:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creative Commons images