Talk:Main Page/Archive 72

message: Tenna is a flange trimmer
How come " Archive – Start a new article " is on the rightside of the DYK template, but on the leftside on the Main Page ? Due to an extra </div> on the TFA template ? Am I the only one seeing this ? --199.71.174.100 21:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, I see a similar thing happening on ITN. " Wikinews – Recent deaths – More current events... " is on the rightside of the ITN template but on the leftside of the column on the Main Page. -- 199.71.174.100 08:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah ! Someone fixed it. :-) Thank you, whoever that was. -- 199.71.174.100 22:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I am having the same problem with my alignment when using Firefox, on the English page. When I use AOL Explorer, the Main Page, and all other pages align perfectly. Is this a problem with Firefox or Wikipedia? Ameinias 01:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange alignment 

message: I created Template:Click-Inline as a fork from Vorlage:Link-Bild-Inline from the German Wikipedia. It is an inline-Version of the Click-Template. Please make a link to it in the Click-Infopage, because (at least in the German WP ;-) ) it resolves lots of topics caused by the paragraph-creating "Click". I think the implementation of Click (Vorlage:Link-Bild) in the German WP is much more robust and reliable than that in the english wp... You should think about replacing the en one with the de...
However, I don't like to make admins too much work, therefor I created a suggested version of "Click" in my User-Area: User:PSIplus/Click ... Try it out, it works perfectly (at least it is widely used in the Navigation-boxes and similar things in the german wp without known problems).
PS: I already posted this in the requests for unlock, but someone meant this should be written here...
Best Regards, --PSIplus Ψ 17:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{Lt|Click}}

message: Any reason why FIFA World Cup is the featured article today rather than tomorrow, when the tournament actually gets underway? Too late now I know, but I quite like having things like that prominent on the actual day, as with The Ashes, which was TFA on July 21, 2005, the actual opening day of the Ashes last year. — SteveRwanda 07:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply put, because the featured article isn't supposed to conflict with other sections of the main page, and the world-cup article will be linked from In The News soon enough. Raul654 08:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So the reason FIFA World Cup was featured yesterday rather than today was because it was going to be ITN today. But it isn't. Skittle 09:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date specific TFA 

message: I think that the Featured Articles section should have a World Cup team every day for the next 32 days. It sounds like a good idea because it's to fit in with the theme. Wikipedia Stubmechanic 08:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pls see above section on #Upcoming FIFA World Cup. -- 64.229.176.142 17:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: We can't do it that way because a) Featured Articles need to pass a rigorous peer review and meet the highest standards before they can even be considered, b) the front page is supposed to rotate subjects (we aren't the football-ipedia), c) getting the eliminated teams featured before their elimination would be very tricky even if the articles were reviewed, nominated, accepted, and queued, and so on. --Dhartung | Talk 22:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Cup Nations 

message: Are we going to have a nice little box summarizing the events in the World Cup on the main page like we have when it's the olympics? It is a more popular sporting event after all. Although I guess there is not as much to report, but still it would be nice. Oskar 16:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we are, see #Upcoming FIFA World Cup.--May the Force be with you!  Shreshth91(review me!) 16:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that was really easy to find. I guess I'm just lazy as hell :) Oskar 16:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World cup box? 

message: Oh Come on... Yet another case of Systemic Bias, especially to do with some online video series. And some of us thought having a frontpage featured article on Perfect Dark was bad. Boochan 04:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red vs Blue 

message: A couple of minor points.
First, what decides which team appears first? We have Germany and England who both won on the left, but Ecuador are on the right.
Secondly, should the scores be centred using a table, like this
England	1	–	0	Paraguay
Poland 	0	–	2	Ecuador
Germany	4	–	2	Costa Rica
so that the scores line up?
smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the winners should be on the left, and I think your table idea is great. Excuse me while I steal it and copy it onto WP:ITN.--May the Force be with you!  Shreshth91(review me!) 15:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Convention is that teams are presented in the same order as listed in the fixtures list. Bazza 15:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds logical enough to me, although there should probably be enough room for the full names if there are two games or less (this might not be true for Trinidad and Tobago and Serbia and Montenegro games though). Rje 00:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Cup 

message: When you place the cursor over the new photo on the main page it still says world cup. 74.133.8.162 17:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops!  Sorry about that.  —David Levy 17:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Main Page Photo 

message: To ignore the World Cup results, add the following to your User:YOURNAME/monobook.css file, and after saving, press CTRL+F5 to refresh the file: 
#worldcup { display: none; }
— BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 19:25
:Handy alias to that file is Special:Mypage/monobook.css. — ceejayoz talk 21:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hiding 2006 World Cup results

message: The user edit counter is no longer updating en.wikipedia.org data. Go here and go to User talk:Interiot for the discussion. FellowWikipedian 21:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very old news: it has been the case since at least April. It also isn't entirely accurate. Before the recent shutdown of the tool for resynchronisation, it was still updating en data, just slowly and erratically. —Cuiviénen 22:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Besides old, it's also irrelevant to the Main Page. Better at the Village pump than here, if the goal is to get people to discuss at User talk:Interiot. -- 199.71.174.100 16:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  News... 

message: With the latest Stanley Cup revert war, I say we ditch the whole thing before it gets completely out of hand. When the finals of both of these cups are determined, go ahead and put an entry in, but until then, don't flood ITN with pointless statistics, which will only encourage every other sport to flood with their scores, claiming precedence. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 02:28
I don't think the scores work, but a "FIFA World Cup 2006" link with the Germany 2006 logo to the left of it, linking to a page with scores and an analysis of each game would be nice. I'm sure it wouldn't be extrmemely hard to make a nice GUI for the scores/analysis pages. It wouldn't be too hard to make a nice looking layout for the scores and a short 1-2 paragraph analysis would also work.
*This is an encyclopedia, not espn.com. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 03:49
**See this existing discussion on World Cup results. Thanks. Harro5 03:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ditch the scores

message: Please add " Trinity Sunday in Western Christianity (2006) " to On this day. Thanks. -- 199.71.174.100 16:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trinity Sunday 

message: Wow, I think this is the first time I've seen a redlink on the Main Page! Timrem 00:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brian0918 made an article to fix that. Timrem 02:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Eleutherodactylus lineatus]] 

message: Re Indonesian earthquake:
"However, recent analysis indicates the number of casualties were 186,983 dead and 42,883 missing, for a total of 229,866 affected. The catastrophe was one of the deadliest disasters in modern history. The magnitude of the earthquake was originally recorded as 9.0 on the Richter scale, but has been upgraded to between 9.1 and 9.3."
The phrase "recent analysis indicates ..." is unacceptably vague for the quite-specific numbers that follow. Please cite the source of the analysis and when. Same too regarding magnitude: say who recorded the original 9.0 (likely usgs) and who upgraded (ditto). Numbers have varied between U.S. and Indonesian sources.
Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.1.171 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources are cited in the article. Raul654 16:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've rewritten that sentence in the article; it was pretty awkward wording. --Dhartung | Talk 18:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's featured article: Indonesian earthquake/tsunami 

message: I propose the main page as a removal candidate, unless it doesn't give enough tribute to the world's most important event in modern history (you can say what you want, it's not just a sport event, a cultural event, a global festivity it's all of that and even more), it binds billions of people in the world (not just millions as NBA or the Oktoberfest do). It should be clear that the FIFA World Cup is meant.
:Not everyone cares that much about sports.  I know the World Cup is a major event (although most of my fellow countryman would just as soon yawn).  But keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not a news outlet.  You should go to BBC, Sports Illustrated, or some other news organization for World Cup updates.  --Nelson Ricardo 13:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, not everyone cares about sports, but even people (like _women_ :-) ) who normally do not care about sports, care very much about the world cup. On Friday in the Netherlands (16 million people), the opening game (Germany - Costa Rica) had 2.8 million viewers, 60% of total viewers that evening. Poland - Ecuador scored 2.4 million viewers. Two games that the Netherlands were not in, not even from their group! These were the two most popular programs of the evening, number three was the World Cup news show. But actually many people probably went out to watch the game in a pub or bar. Piet 13:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about how important it is, it's about what wikipedia is (not)! Zarniwoot 14:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What could Wikipedia be that major news events watched by billions would not be worth an entry?  There is a lot of trizia in Wikipedia, like the massive entry on Star Trek Enterprise and why fans don't like it.  If Wikipedia can have the Klingon Language (a massive section on it) it can have the World Cup. Both are just entertainment.
*Quite. I doubt you'd be able to get the main page removed. Anyway, we're an encyclopedia not a World Cup fanpage and we tend to talk about more than just sports. If you look up a fan page, it will give it all the attention you want and more. In fact, FIFA World Cup was already chosen featured article when it started last week. Normally, featured articles aren't linked to current events. We've discriminated in favor of it too much already. - Mgm|(talk) 09:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal as a removal candidate 

message: The information that appears in the products regarding Lesotho is simply incorrect
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.25.228.4 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the wrong info ? --65.95.106.88 15:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lesotho 

message: Australia - Japan 3-1. Can I say that :-) ? Piet 14:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know! It was amazing (I'm Australian) what a match!!!!!! There'll be riots in the streets lol!! 
BUT I still don't think that sports scores belong on the main page. --Monotonehell 20:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Cup Result 

message: :Moved to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. -- 65.95.106.88 16:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandela sent to prison: incorrect wording 

message: Hi, can Homestar Runner be a featured article?--H*bad 16:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. -- 65.95.106.88 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured 

message: Why is Newest articles linking on recent additions? Why isnt there New article special page anymore? Luka Jačov 16:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: Defending Super Bowl winning Quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was in a major motorcycle accident today. Why isn't this in the ITN Box with the World Cup? This Anti-American, Anti-American Football POV is offensive. [/sarcasm] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bloodsorr0w (talk • contribs) 21:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is no open [sarcasm] tag, I'm not sure where the sarcasm begins. Is it before the Why or is the whole thing sarcastic? joturner 21:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  False tags are often placed at the end for humor. Putting an open <sarcasm> tag at the beginning would ruin the joke. It would give away the ending. --JCasto 22:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed. Fear not, for it was all sarcasm. Preston 22:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can talk about American football. The American football team lost 0-3 to the Czech Republic yesterday :-) See the football portal for up-to-date details. Piet 07:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We did? Wait... we have an American soccer team? Really? Are you being serious? I've seen soccer being played in the US before, but... they were all 12 year old girls. This team you speak of, are they grown adults? Preston 16:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't clear from what I saw... You guys are funny. When the US gets a good result you're shouting it around for everyone to hear and when they lose it's suddenly unimportant. Nobody in the US cared about cycling either, until Lance Armstrong started winning the tour, then suddenly everyone had to hear how great this American was. I guess we'll have to wait for a good USA result in the World Cup for the US to become interested in soccer. Piet 20:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  People in the US were much more interested in his divorce/relationship with Sheryl Crow than in the Tour de France. Preston 20:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not Really User:pallfy 18:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ben Roethlisberger 

message: Some people seem to be losing sight of what ITN is; it's a list of articles that have recently been updated to reflect current events. Not news for news sake. Relative notoriety isn't something that should dictate whether something makes it to the main page or not. Just because one event is perceived more popular than another doesn't make it more ITN-worthy. It may make it more news-worthy, but as has been said before WP is not a news service. In fact there's something that could be said for exposing readers to a variety of new information and new ideas. As long as the subject is encyclopedic then it should be considered.
We could take the Stanley Cup verses the FIFA World Cup for example. On my side of the world the World Cup is everywhere, while the Stanley Cup I only know about due to my rabid Canadian friends. Both deserve an encyclopedic article written about them. By that I mean a discussion of what they are, their impact on society(s), their history, specific events perceived to be important by their followers. The ultimate "winners" of each season could be listed in those articles but only as a sidenote to the article itself, not the entire season's or semi-finals results. 
When such an event begins, and the article is updated with appropriate information, then it could be nominated for inclusion. Also when the "winner" is announced the same could occur. I see several people citing the Olympics and what occurred then. I honestly can't remember exactly what happened, but no matter, what should occur is similar to what I've mentioned above. If an article is updated regarding a sportsperson, event or other related subject with current event information then it could be nominated for inclusion.
Recap:
* ITN's purpose is not as a news service
* Relative notoriety should not bias inclusions into the ITN box, either way.
* ITN candidates need articles with interest and content beyond "Australia 3 - Japan nil" ( GO AUSSIE!! *ahem* see? I like football too ;)
I suggested a name change for the ITN box a little while ago to help remove misconceptions about its purpose. We might like to reconsider this.
--Monotonehell 22:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some name changes are being discussed here - search for "Behind the news". Carcharoth 00:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That page is a tediously long discussion about a World Cup scors poll — not really to do with an alternative name for In The News, a suggestion for which is Topical Articles Bazza 12:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you search as indicated there's a few lines in the middle refferring to my initial suggestion and another such discussion. But not very much more regarding it. --Monotonehell 14:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it, thanks. It's a good idea though and should be explored some more — people do have trouble with what In The News means and I think the number is greater than User:Brian0918 gives credit for. Bazza 17:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit break 

message: I think :Image:AC72-2143.2.jpg is a bad picture for On this day. It's too small and too dark to see the Pioneer 10 spacecraft, and today is not the anniversary of the launch, which is depicted in the picture. Can we have :Image:Braddock.jpg to go with the 1935 anniversary, instead ? The other anniversaries do not have PD-free images. -- 64.229.230.121 14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting flashbacks on this one. I agree that it's a problem. In fact, the picture isn't even of Pioneer, but the rocket carrying it. How about :Image:Pioneer10 art.jpg, which at least depicts the craft in space? Melchoir 19:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I changed it to another image, which is even further away in time from Pioneer 10 crossing Pluto's orbit, but at least it isn't so dark like the other two.  I'm pretty sure the Braddock photo is a copyright violation, and I'll be dealing with it shortly.--Pharos 21:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad picture at ''On this day'' 

message: How can i send in things to be appeared on the On This Day... box ??
: Have a look at the guidlines on this page and contribute away. --Monotonehell 22:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On This Day... contributing help 

message: The statement that "this image only applies to some suburbs in the United States and Canada" is simply nonsense. The easiest solution would be to remove the whole sentence. ReeseM 04:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstand. It's not nonsence - the concept of what a suburb is in one part of the world may not be the same as in anther part of the world. A suburb of Athens looks quite different to a suburb of Cardiff. Perhaps change the word "image" to "concept" to make it more clear. --Monotonehell 07:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonsense in the featured picture description

message: what is mean by Isalm?!
:You could start with the article here at Wikipedia Islam. But this is not the place to ask questions. In future you could try Wikipedia:Reference_desk or use the search box on the left. -  --Monotonehell 07:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I understood both were english variations of spelling of the same Arabic word. I could be wrong. --Monotonehell 18:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isalm 

message: June 15th is the anniversary of Kosovo on the Julian Calendar, not the Gregorian, which i believe is on the 28th... so was it On THIS Day? What are the rules for that? Does the Battle of Kosovo get two On This Day mentions? Arthurian Legend 02:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think the historically significant date is better used, whether gregorian or julian.  For example, the October Revolution may have occured in Gregorian November, but its date of historical significance is October 23 (correct me on this), and thus should be placed there and not on November 5th, the Gregorian Date (again, correct me). -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 07:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm is that logical? To me it seems better to put it on the 5th of November. We also use our own calendar when relating to Chinese or Islam or French Revolution events, who use a completely different calendar. Just because the difference with the Julian calendar is small doesn't mean we should abandon our own calendar. Personal opinion of course. Piet 09:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right, but doesn't it seem a bit odd to have the October Revolution occur in November... even though by all means it happened in November, Gregorian, it's date significance is relevant to October.  Anyway, this is off topic now, it doesn't look like the mention of the battle of kosovo will be removed/replaced anyway. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 20:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is probably a guideline somewhere, but finding the right guideline is usually not as much fun as discussing about it :-) Piet 21:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah, yeah it is more fun discussing it.  If there is a guideline, I just hope someone will jump in with it, or if not, maybe they can think one up now. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 02:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Kosovo 

message: June 15th - Corpus Christi in the Western rite Christian liturgical year, please add it to the on this day, thanks
:Might that statement be true for all years? Doesn't it depend on the date of Easter (a moveable feast)? If you were to calculate it for future years and add it to the article, your work would be welcome. --Ancheta Wis 00:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it does appear in Corpus Christi (feast). In 2007, it will fall on the 7th of June. —Cuiviénen 01:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corpus Christi 

message: One of today's anniversary dates says:
:1846 - Pius IX was elected pope, beginning the longest reign of all popes since the days of the apostles.
The part I italicized seems to me to clearly be POV since a sizeable body of Christians (e.g., nearly all Protestants) deny that the papacy existed in the time of the apostles and thus that St. Peter was the first pope. The intro to the article on Pius IX states it more neutrally ("(not counting the Apostle St. Peter)"). I neutralized the text this was likely derived from in June 16. --Flex 17:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: St. Peter was an apostle, so it can hardly be said that he wasn't around when they were. — ceejayoz talk 23:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Protestants do not contest the existence of popes, only their authority and powers.  Deipnosophista 20:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: The image shows STRAW, not HAY. Could someone change the links on the main page, please? --Tom 17:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is actually hay; note that it is quite thin and flexible, while straw tends to be wider. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong title for POTD

message: The "Did You Know" section today feature s a section on the Bani-Nadir and a short write-up about the article. The wrtie-up feels a bit anti-Islamic, that is just my opinion.
*See Talk:Banu Nadir, and explain why it is anti-Islamic, citing sources. Otherwise all we have is your opinion, and opinions don't count for much around here without evidence. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 22:30
**What evidence? Those alleged events happened more than 1300 years ago. Followers of Mohamed do not even agree on such basic issues like in which position he held his hands during prayers according to various eye witnesses (the still on-going debate is one major reason why shia and sunni muslims in Iraq keep killing each other so viciously). Compared to that how can you trust such a detailed write-up of atrocities? On the same logic the Elderly Protocols could be considered true just because they are very detailed. The front page entry is certainly not something Martin Luther King would have approved of.
***Evidence, i.e. reliable sources. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-17 00:08
**That is incorrect.  Evidence is irrelevant.  See NPOV dispute, The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion....  Difference of opinion, held by a non-trivial minority, which the article fails to fairly and sympathetically describe, constitutes a NPOV failure.
*I'm willing to believe that this is an accurate account of events, but I too think it's a bit... much to have it appear on the front page. --Krsont 00:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you explain it to us all, Brian, since it seems to be your area of specific expertise. Badgerpatrol 14:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, you could just go to [Template_talk:Did_you_know]the page linked on the front page under Did you know?] and read about the process there. — ceejayoz talk 23:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks CJ, I actually had already done that. What I really wanted was for Brian to explain, per his above comment, in exactly what way DYK items were NOT selected by 'a small group of folks', and to take us through his exact thought process in selecting that particular item for the main page. The DYK guidelnes are not particularly instructive in this regard, as far as I can see. Anyway, the item in question is now off the main page, and there's no point crying over spilt milk, as they say. Badgerpatrol 20:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CJ, for background: A terse summary, but non-neutral and ad hominum, might be that a couple of, hmm, people concerned that the badness of Muhammad and his followers be more widely known, created a Muhammed bashing history article, devoid of NPOV, and it was put on the wikipedia front page.  A more neutral summary might be that an article, category "People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad", was created describing Mohamed's treacherous avarice, murderous abuse, and general sliminess towards a Jewish tribe.  No alternate points of view.  Little cultural context.  Disparagingly worded.  Not at all subtle.  Hmm, not subtle at least for a native speaker of English, obviously.  Brian put it on the front page.  The creator, Brian, and others, then removed npov and accuracy disputed tags added during the day by different people.  With arguments similar to 'Cite facts for NPOV claims, opinions don't matter.  Provide edits for consideration instead.  Only some biased words are a problem.  My cites are better than your cites, so no dispute exists'.  At best it was a misunderstanding of NPOV, accuracy, and dispute policy.  Otherwise, obviously, it was something else. 66.30.119.55 00:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Placing the article on the front page was clearly against NPOV and DYK policy.  Thus the interest in Brian's thoughts when judging it fit for the front page.  My own interpretation is a combined failure to see the article as biased, and misunderstanding of NPOV (ie, 'since Muhammad was slimy, and the true facts are cited properly, there can't be a POV issue').  Rather than a WP:POINT.  But that's just looking at the one event, without checking for a pattern in past acts.  Brian has not said whether he now believes any mistakes were made. 66.30.119.55 00:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DYK - Banu Nadir

message: If the Space Shuttle Discovery does launch in the first weeks of July, would a Space Exploration Featured Article be appropriate?
Just a thought--Flyintothesky
:You've only got a few days to nominate it, so get to work! --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Space Exploration Featured Article?

message: "1873 - Woman suffrage activist Susan B. Anthony was fined $100 for attempting to vote in the 1872 U.S. presidential election."
Surely this should either be dated 1872 or be the 1873 election? Correct me if I'm wrong this just seems a little strange... --TheCooperman 00:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "On this day..." error?

message: We learn that:
*"The spiderweb has always been thought of as an engineering marvel."
Has it? Has it really? Melchoir 00:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, just like There'll Always Be an England ;) Perhaps change 'always' for 'long'. I guess you can say that since before Robert the Bruce people have been marveling at spiders' web engineering, without too much need of reference. --Monotonehell 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POTD caption 

message: DNA is on chemistry.
:Thanks for the comment. --Descendall 17:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  chemistry