Talk:Main Page/Archive 85

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Adopt a noob

I wonder how hard it would be to create a program like this, like Mechapixel did. Just have a list of all the unadopted new users, and let the experienced ones, (say, 2 months joined), choose one to mentor. They would answer any questions the user had, one on one, using email, or their respective talk pages or IM screennames. This way, a new user wouldn't have to wait so long to get that burning question answered. Just a thought.
WiiWillieWiki 22:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User already does this on a volunteer basis. —Cuiviénen 23:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
This is not related to MainPage at all. Please be reminded to make use of Wikipedia:Village pump for suggestions like this. Thanks. --PFHLai 10:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"On This Day" for Dec 4th

in "On this Day" for Dec 4th, it says "1639 - English astronomer Jeremiah Horrocks made the first observation of a transit of Venus (pictured)." Taken literally this might be interpreted that this picture is an actual photo taken by Horrocks. Could that get clarified? Spebudmak 01:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The confusion stems from the fact that astronomers typically call data which they take "observations", which in many cases are photos. Spebudmak 01:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out, Spebudmak. I've typed in "(2004 picture shown)". Hope it's clearer now. Next time, please use WP:ERRORS. Service is usually quicker there. --PFHLai 10:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Spebudmak 17:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Changing the image

Are there any strong objections to my changing the picture illustrating Down syndrome on the main page? Some have brought up the point on the image talk page that this picture does not really do a good job of illustrating the condition. It just shows a child drilling a table. I think Image:Down Syndrome Karyotype.png would be a much better replacement as this scientifically illustrates the cause of the phenomenon. I don't object to the use of Image:Drill.jpg in the article, but I think the other one is simply more appropriate for our main page. Irongargoyle 01:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not sure that the karyotype will look anything more than random black lines once shrunk to thumbnail size. Borisblue 01:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I also think a lot of people unfamiliar with karyotypes or biology in general would know what the new picture was. Nishkid64 01:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Good point about the thumbnails. I think I'll go look for a better image on commons. Irongargoyle 01:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
This might do it: Image:Brushfield.jpgBorisblue 01:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
How about these pictures from the turkish wikipedia? [1], [2]. Borisblue 02:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Those look good. How about we give it a shot? Nishkid64 02:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Those images apparently were uploaded to the Commons with invalid licensing information (and should be deleted). The phrase "All rights reserved" appears on both Flickr pages: [3]/[4]. —David Levy 03:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Down Synrome Karyotype yeah it doesn't work particularly well as a thumbnail but how about this? Down Synrome Karyotype showing only chromosomes 20-22 Nil Einne 14:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Great idea. That should be used. --Descendall 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
No, the karyotype is useless as a thumbnail. As Borisblue says, at 100 pixels wide, it's just meaningless black lines. Raul654 19:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm no biologist, but Down Synrome Karyotype showing only chromosomes 20-22 is pretty damn clear to me. -- 20:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I am a biologist, and I think a picture of an adult down syndrome persone will do a much better job at illustrating the condition then a kid picture or a chromosome art. The facial abnormalities of Down Syndrome are much more pronounced in surviving adults then in kids, and the chromosome art just does not carry enough meaning to the vast majority of readers. It can be a second picture in the article, or linked to, to spike curiocity, but not the first one. Just my $0.01.

How the "Complete List" link in interwiki area?

I've looked through the wiki code of Main Page, can't find how the link was added. 14:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a clever javascript hack to the interwikis. I have no idea how it was performed but here's the discussion as it was created. --Monotonehell 14:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Search function

I'm very new to Wikipedia, but I find it to be a great source of information. In my experience, many of the "information" and encyclopeida sites have jumped on the bandwagon of maximizing the use of video and sound clips but provide little real information. Wikipedia gives you a lot of real information. However, to me, I find the search function very weak. I look up many words for which I don't know the correct spelling. Many times Wiki cannot find the word, so I have to jump to Google, put in my best guess of the spelling, get the correct spelling and then jump back to Wiki. There should be a better way. If this was not the correct place to post this, tell me where I should have posted it. I chose MAINPAGE because it is the entrance into Wiki and a better AI/speller suggester would better help people find what they want and would be a good thing to do for a better new year. -So you have my IP address, what'ya gonna do with it? 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)REH

Yes, our search function is somewhat inferior to Google's. This is partly because they have billions of dollars and some of the world's best programmers available to perfect their proprietary search algorithm, while on Wikimedia projects, the decision has been made to use only open-source software, so we use the Lucene search module. Lucene is actually a lot better than our search function gives it credit for, though – there are also issues with the way in which MediaWiki, the software that runs Wikipedia, stores text, which prevents it from making the most of Lucene's full capabilities – Gurch 01:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You can use Google to search through Wikipedia only.--cloviz 03:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured article vandalism

Help someone!!! I can't find the source of the bad image on the very top of the definition of macedonia page. Someone help!!!! --Geekler A Segway Geek 01:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. It wasn't the page itself, someone must have edited one of the templates on the page. I didn't find it, but it's fixed now – Gurch 01:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Just happened again. It was a template. I reverted it this time. Users responsible are indefinitely blocked – Gurch 01:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Omg...I was eating some chips when I saw a big picture of a penis on that page. I'm still disturbed... Nishkid64 02:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You poor guy. SShocked.gif oTHErONE (Contribs) 03:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
That was completely disgusting. I clicked that Macedonia link and it gave me a pic of that huge male organ!! Get those vandals!!!ResurgamII 03:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
See ANI discussion for details. - BanyanTree 05:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia_talk:Main_Page_featured_article_protection#Templates and Talk:Macedonia (terminology)#Vandalism while on Main Page. Carcharoth 10:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Other discussions on this topic

Other discussions on this topic are here, here, here and here. Please add more if you find them. Someone may wish to consolidate all these disparate discussions into one location. Carcharoth 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Macedonia

(merged into relevant section by Carcharoth 12:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps vandalising the Definition of Macedonia page by inserting multiple images of a penis on the page. For some reason, this vandalism cannot be reverted. People have raised the problem on the article's talk page but no action has been taken. --Damac 12:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

See the previous section. They are tampering with templates included on that page. Action has been taken – the vandalism has been reverted, the users responsible have been indefinitely blocked and most of the templates have been protected from editing – Gurch 12:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
In future can templates that are used in featured articles be semi-protected before they are put on the main-page? Catchpole 13:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Possibly. Discussions to that effect are underway on one of the pages linked in the previous section. It probably wouldn't be necessary for all articles, though – this one seems to be attracting an unusually large amount of vandalism – Gurch 13:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of, or at least discussion of, Deletion Putsch

You should address the persistent (and important to many contributors) question of why you suddenly have an army of editors deleting articles - as opposed to devoting their time to, say, editing article content and improving layout / proofreading. This subject was recently discussed (somewhat lightheartedly) in a New York Times article. So why are y'all doing this? Are you trying to alleviate a bandwidth shortage? Why so much eagerness to excise others' contributions of so many articles? Why give a crap so dang much, and who exactly grants these editors their positions of authority anyway? If there's a logical explanation for why this has become a priority, please explain.

Obviously, I have an opinion - I quarrel with the motivation and the execution of the new Wikipedia deletion surge. If Wikipedia isn't a suitable place to record and explain small bits of our world (such as passing pop culture phenomena, for instance) then where is? I have read the deletion guidelines, the policies on notoriety, but yet I still see, routinely, these guidelines applied arbitrarily, subjects of great magnitude of interest deleted, while other indisputably lessor subjects remain enshrined the hallowed halls of Wikipedialand. And this biased, imperfect deletion policy is towards what end?

And then all the lingo of "salting" to denote banning subjects - is nothing if not mean-spirited and elitist. To deny the public the right to write about any subject -ever-again- reeks of a betrayal of what this thing is supposed to be about - a democratic submission policy about collecting knowledge - in all its pros and cons, messy splendor. That a Wikipedia cabal has been deputized to delete and ban the submission of certain subjects (and that anyone would applaud the act) seems to serve little purpose, and certainly not a democratic one. 17:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the Main Page. If you have a question or proposal, you may be looking for the Village Pump. - BanyanTree 18:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor an anarchy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and subjects which are unencyclopedic are, frankly, not welcome. —Cuiviénen 00:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture Placements

I have a suggestion about the placing of the pictures in the 'Did you know...', 'In the news' and 'On this day...' sections on the main page: Wouldn't it be better if the pictures in those 3 sections appeared just to the right of their respective entries instead of the top right corner? I sometimes find it hard to immediately match the picture to the corresponding entry in those sections. Take today(december 9th) for example, the 'in the news' section is showing a picture of Hugo Chavez, but immediately to the left of the picture are entries about Ethiopia and Iraq, which has little or nothing to do with Chavez, but the Chavez entry is 2nd last in that section way at the bottom. I don't know what it would look like if changes were made, but it's just my suggestion. LG-犬夜叉 00:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This was tried on ITN recently. See Template talk:In the news#Image/news item placement for the discussion and result. - BanyanTree 03:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Stupid suggestion

Is it possible to nominate the Main Page as a featured article? Simply south 01:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't an article... and I guarantee it wouldn't pass. --Majorly 01:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The Main Page is in the article namespace only for historical reasons and it's kept there for simplicity and because there are so many links, internal and external, pointing to it. It's more of a portal than an article, so Portal:Main Page would be a more technically correct title, or perhaps Wikipedia:Main Page since it's arguably a project page also (both these are currently redirects) – Gurch 01:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you could try nominating it as a Featured Portal if you want. GeeJo (t)(c) • 16:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Go to Wikipedia's article and you will see VERY inappropiate pictures! PLEASE IMMEDIATLEY BAN THE USER Stellaartois AT ONCE! HE'S VERY TRICKY! EVERY TIME WE TRY TO FIX IT, HE PUTS UP ANOTHER PHOTO! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

The user in question has been indefinitely blocked. In future, it would be helpful if you could link to the appropriate articles by typing, for example, [[Wikipedia]] to link to the Wikipedia article. Thanks – Gurch 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

general discussion page?

Excuse me, but is there a general discussion page talking about what we should on Wikipedia, etc.? I tried talking in here... But i suppose this is just a page that talks about the main page ALONE, so is there any other page that we can talk about what to add on Wikipedia, etc. ??? Dragong4 05:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

General discussion or questions tends to happen on a relevant subpage of the Wikipedia:Village Pump. If you want to see what sort of articles get removed, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability are worth reading as an introduction. - BanyanTree 05:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village Pump. --Howard the Duck 05:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please ban our new friend, Bobby Steelworker the Bobby Boulders sockpuppet

I can't believe his account isn't tagged yet. He's already done WP:CVU and probably the Bobby Boulders user page as usual. What a pest. --CommKing 23:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The account has been indefinitely blocked – Gurch 04:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
You know that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is probably the best place to report this right? Nil Einne 19:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:AIV is best for obvious vandalism, actually. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I always thought AIV was for users who have been appropriately warned but continue to vandalise and so may need to be blocked where as incidents is for things like sockpuppets and people evading blocks. That's what the respective pages say to me anyway, for example incidents says This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks. In any case, I guess we can agree that either of those pages are better then the mainpage talkpage. Nil Einne 12:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I use my search engine to crawl into wikipedia?

To whom it may concern,

I have my enterprise search engine installed within my network, and is it possible for me to set my search engine to crawl into wikipedia and index it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alanay (talkcontribs) 04:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Short answer: No.
Long answer: The sysadmin team actively blocks crawlers and scrapers. If you want to crawl our pages, you will need to ask their permission directly at Wikitech-l. Otherwise, they'll block you at the server level. Titoxd(?!?) 04:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Stupid question time!!! What's a crawler? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 17:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
A web crawler is an automated program that searches and indexes webpages. Also see the Googlebot, a well known crawler. Koweja 18:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I see. I can see how that would be useful, and why Wikipedia would want to block them (to prevent server strain). But if Wikipedia blocks them then how does Wikipedia manage to always come up in search engine results? Does Wikipedia make an exception for Google, Yahoo, Ask, Vivisimo, and the others or what? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 19:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's just say they've already approved Google's bot. ~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 11:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


Where do you find who the author is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Click on the history tab at the top of an article, and it will list all the contributors who have worked on the article. --liquidGhoul 05:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
To expand on that comment, most ever article on Wikipedia has been edited by multiple people. Each of those people contributions are listed in the history. Click on any of the user names, and occasionally you'll find their real names, and occupations.
If you're wanting to cite an article, just look on the left hand side of the page, click "Cite this article". You'll automatically get a list of all the common citation formats, with the article's information already input for you. -- Zanimum 15:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured content link

On November 24th the sidebar was updated to link to Wikipedia:Featured content rather than Wikipedia:Featured articles. Given that this link is now included on every page would it make since to remove the 'featured content' link from the Main page or replace it with something else? This link is currently displayed on the upper right portion of the page in the section that looks like:

Contents · Categories · Featured content · A–Z index

Any thoughts on what other link might make sense there? A Portals link seems like one possibility. --CBD 13:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Two of the links from the left-hand row (Help:Contents and Wikipedia:About) appear on every page; this redundancy is deliberate and has existed from the beginning. We could replace any of these links, but I don't think that we should. The extra attention is beneficial.
2. A link to Portal:List of portals (displayed in bold) already exists directly above the row of links that you cited. —David Levy 13:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The current setup seems fine to me too. Different folks pay more attention to different things. Rfrisbietalk 14:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes... we already have a link to the portals. Cleverly hidden as close as possible to where I was suggesting. Doh! :] --CBD 16:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comma usage in FA blurb

"are sections of the Constitution of India, that prescribe the fundamental"

Is that one really necessary? --Zeality 01:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem so to me; go ahead and report it here. Split Infinity 02:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. —Cuiviénen 03:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured user

Any thoughts on putting a link to a featured Wikipedia user on the main page? Some people have really good userpages with lots of great links. Dlodge 03:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. —Centrxtalk • 03:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. In other words, user pages (and all other aspects of the "community") exists only as a means to an end. They are not part of the project's end product, and there is no reason why readers of the encyclopedia would want to see them. Wikipedia is not a social networking site – Gurch 05:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
A better place for such an item might be Wikipedia:Community Portal. -- 15:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Loaded: In the news

The bit on Kofi Anan and his speech is loaded in my opinion. There is no article regarding his speech, yet someone took the liberty of noting how critical he was of the United States. He didn't talk about anything else? Again, his stance on the US might actually be noteworthy if there was an article to properly back it up - it's editorializing otherwise. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please join the on-going discussion at Template talk:In the news#Kofi Annan. -- 16:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


I know im not meant to post this here but i couldnt find the correct place to post it. Anyway there is a racist caption to a picture in the article on the human face (i think the page is just titled 'face'). I dont know how to remove it, but i hope one of you will do it. Also it might be gone by the time i type this but theres a giant nude picture on this talk page at the top!? I found that quite funny, but unacceptable of course. Harvestein

A better place for this complaint would be the talkpage of the article in question. -- 15:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

dont see anything os that sort.


Some vandal has made it so that viewing when this talk page, a VERY rude picture\painting appears. Please get rid of it. Simply south 12:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be something to do with Template:Main Page discussion header. It appears in all versions from this one onwards. Can't work out what the problem is though, unfortunately. Carcharoth 12:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the header until the vandalism is cleaned up. Carcharoth 12:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem was in Talk:Main Page/archivelist. Fixed now – Gurch 12:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've restored the header template to this page. Carcharoth 12:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It happened several times: [5]; [6]; [7]. The culprit is here. Carcharoth 12:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I filed a request at WP:RFCU. MER-C 12:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, vandalism is still there, some dirty pervert decided to leave it there. I suggest an IP ban. 13:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Unregistered User

It's either the person responsible for #Featured article vandalism above, or a copycat. Admins, please add images used by the template vandal to MediaWiki:Bad image list, as well as implementing an appropriate level of protection. Considering the vandal is now forced to use paintings from 1866, it appears that recent additions to the image list are constraining the images he feels will get a rise out of people. On a sidenote, I think that Gustave Courbet would be delighted that L'Origine du monde (not work-safe) is still considered shocking, a century and a half after he created it. - BanyanTree 14:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, maybe he should be delighted, either way, the vandalism is gone now. Thanks 11:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The history of monopoly

redirects to something eles.--Taida 01:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody had vandalised the page. I've reverted it. The page should be visible now.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 01:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Suffolk murders

Shouldn't they be in the news. Biggest police investigation in the UK for 30 years so I hear. 09:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The investigation after the July 2005 London bombings was the biggest police investigation in British history. 10:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Well murder investigation then. Picky sod. 12:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Plus it's still massive news. 12:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Whilst is IS extremely massive in the UK I doubt it is in the US. This is (however much people sya it isnt), a US-dominant site, and the world. Five murders arent enough. Massiv in Britain, not here. Anyway, you dont post about that here, see the messages at the top. 17:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I remember coming here once and seeing a story about some people in California getting food poisoning! Now your telling me that a serial killer, the worst for thirty years in the UK, is not worthy of reporting. If this was America however! 22:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What you need to do is write the appropriate article and nominate it at WT:ITN. Zocky | picture popups 03:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway it is big news in the USA, for your information! It was on the front page of CNN and the second story on ABC news. Steven 17:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Kofi Annan preview picture

I am just a frequent reader who thought I should report what apparently seems to be vandalism on the article about Kori Annan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for your note! Anyone may revert vandalism. See Help:Reverting for how, so you can handle it next time you spot a problem. - BanyanTree 14:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Examining the Holocaust? Excuse Me?

Excuse me? It is a Holocaust denial conference - sponsored by a regime that openly wants to destroy Israel. NYU has conferences "examining" the Holocaust, discussing the functionalism vs. intentionalism and how it compares to other genocides. The Iranian conference is an openly antisemitic attempt to deny one of the greatest crimes in history (and is organized by one someone aiming to be one of the greatest criminals in history). Saying it "examines" the Holocaust is deliberate obfuscation at worst and belligerent ignorance at best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

I think I've found a better way of wording it now :) dab (𒁳) 14:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. There is nothing legitimate about the conference, and nothing about the existence of the Holocaust to "review." The conference's purpose is "to deny" the Holocaust - an openly evil act. It's like David Duke (who is at the conference, not coincedentially) "reviewing" whether blacks have a higher propensity towards crime then whites - the very act of saying the question can be legitimately "reviewed" grants it legitimacy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 15:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a news headline. That's why it is on T:ITN. Nishkid64 15:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that a news agency, probably reproducing Iranian propoganda, emphatically incorrectly describes an event does not mean we have to incorrectly describe the event. We are presumably all intelligent people and are capable of assessing whether certain statements are patently false, or belligerently neutral. The fact that something is described in a certain way in a press release or whatever does not mean that it is a legitimate view. A similar controversy arose with C-Span recently, where they planned to feature a Holocaust denier to "give the other side of the debate" after a lecture on the Holocaust. They finally concluded, very correctly, that there is no other side of the debate and that "truth is not balanced by falsehood."

Would we describe a KKK conference discussing, say, "black inferiority and whether lynching is necessary to keep blacks in line and how blacks liked slavery" as "reviewing African-American society" if a headline, no doubt reproduced from a press release, said as much? Are we incapable of determining whether a statement is grossly false and evil? I repeat: the Iranian conference's stated purpose is to deny the Holocaust, an emphatically evil and antisemtic act, and uncritically reproducing the claim that there is something legitimate to "review" is factually incorrect. It is also morally obtuse, but that apparently is not a relevant issue.

I think the best link would be Holocaust denial symposium Dullfig 17:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
this isn't a conference of holocaust deniers. The tendency is clear, but since several rabbis attend, we cannot so label the entire conference (unlike individual participants). The correct term is revisionism, in parts historical revisionism (negationism). They also avoid saying up front that they want to review the existence of the Holocaust, please be accurate, they claim to review its particulars, not its very existence. dab (𒁳) 17:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not true - it is emphatically a conference of Holocaust deniers. The several rabbis you mention, which apparently are succesful in convincing the world that this is a legitimate conference, are members of the Neturei Karta - a tiny splinter group of ultra-orthodox Jews who are militantly opposed to the existence of Israel, to the extent that they openly support Hamas and praised Ahmedinejad's vow to destroy Israel. I mean literally "militantly opposed" - they fought on the Arab side in the 1948 War of Independence. They quite literally hate most Jews in the world, namely the secular ones and the Israel-supporting ones.

The fact that the conference organizers may "claim to review its particulars" does not mean that they are not engaging in Holocaust denial. The standard claim of Holocaust deniers such as David Irving is that indeed several hundred thousand Jews were killed by the Einsatzgruppen, but that the mass killing of several million Jews, mostly in gas chambers, NEVER TOOK PLACE. To argue that the true sum of Jewish dead in the Holocaust was 5.7 million is legitimate. To claim that the total number is 400,000 because the gas chambers never existed, and the Jews made it up, is an evil, antisemitic lie and a denial of the Holocaust. And what could a "review of the particulars" be about? Especially at a conference attended by actual notorious Holocaust deniers, held by a regime that sponsored a Holocaust-mocking cartoon contest? Somehow I doubt they are going to have a learned debate with Raul Hilberg over functionalism vs. intentionalism.

I see that the propaganda has suceeded in opening up the debate (since, as you say "they claim to review its particulars, not its very existence") on an issue in which there is no debate and to claim otherwise is both false and evil. Have we abandoned all critical thinking to take a false, evil claim to be worthy of legitimate review? Are we all belligerantly ignorant?

Dab - do you believe it is legitimate to question whether several million Jews were killed and if the gas chambers existed? And if so (and I hope to God the answer is no), is this a mere "review" or a denial of the Holocaust?

I repeat: this is a Holocaust denial conference, whatever reasonable-sounding title they give it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minjitthemidget (talkcontribs)

a somewhat superfluous question. You will note that my change to ITN was from

'examine' to '"review"', introducing the scare quotes. It is obvious that little else than a full-fledged Holocaust denial session would be hosted by Ahmadinejad. Still, since the conference only just opened, "it" had no time to actullay 'deny' anything, did it. If the closing note of the conference should be "Holocaust is a fairy tale", there will still be ample time to rename the article appropriately. My point is that "a conference" usually does not make any claims, it is the individual participants that do.dab (𒁳) 18:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the link it the quoted phrase goes to historical revisionism. Perhaps we should change "aiming" to "claiming". Koweja 17:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be a start. I genuinely do not understand the issue. Something like "claiming to deny the Holocaust" is an accurate description of the event - on an issue where factual accuracy is of towering moral importance. Minjitthemidget 18:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

hm, no, they are "claiming to review the holocaust". They may still be denying it, all the while denying they're denying it... For the sake of brevity (ITN), they are claiming to review the holocaust, since that's the title of the conference, and after all historical revisionism is little more than an euphemism for holocaust denial. dab (𒁳) 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So we both agree that the title is incorrect and I believe I have demonstrated that it gives a grossly, evilly distorted misreprentation of an evil conference. This is not a mere euphemism - it is a distortion and attempt at disguising something evil by making it sound legitimate. Why not "for the sake of brevity," let alone truth, call it what it is? Otherwise we are complicit in the distortion.Minjitthemidget 18:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How about just "a conference on the Holocaust"? Redquark 18:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
That would work. The article explains in more than enough detail that it is a revisionist conference, and anyone who knows anything about Ahmadinejad can figure that out without reading the article. Koweja 18:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure we should be writing content with the assumption that readers already know about the subject. Just "a conference on the Holocaust", to me, fails to make it clear why this conference is newsworthy. --Maxamegalon2000 19:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Then they can click the bolded link and find out why. Koweja 19:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
"a conference on the Holocaust" makes it sound much more legitimate, and thus indeed "evilly distorts" facts than "'review the Holocaust'", in scare quotes, which makes it evident that they are out to, if not deny, at least downplay the extent of the Holocaust. dab (𒁳) 19:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no little pop-up bubble to indicate that the scare quotes are scare quotes. Especially in a news headline, quotes are taken to be quotations of things, without the skepticism implied by scare quotes. I frankly still don't see why "conference aimed at denying the Holocaust" is not the best option. It accurately describes the event. It does not in anyway mislead. Frankly, it does not even add a moral judgment; it simply describes the event accurately and lets the reader draw his/her conclusions. "Review the Holocaust" has all the severe problems I discuss above.Minjitthemidget 20:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd prefer to just not mention it at all since I see no real need to acknowledge these people and the conference itself serves to actual purpose except to rile people up and call attention to the attendees. However, that's irrelevant since it is listed. I don't really see the problem with "revewing" since that's what they are doing. Of course they have to authority in the matter and have already decided the outcome, but a BS review is still a review. I just really don't think we need to add our collective analysis of the conference to the blurb. How about "a conference to discuss their views on the Holocaust" or something along those lines. Link "their views" to the article on holocaust denial, and we're good. Just a statement of fact and a link so the reader know what those views are. Koweja 21:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I know: "Holocaust Conference, a conference widely expected to deny the holocaust." Dullfig 23:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
We must avoid weasel words. Writing the motives purported by the organizers in quotations marks is perfectly neutral and factual.--cloviz 00:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please people, we're writing a NPOV encyclopedia, not a "moral point of view" encyclopedia. It's completely irrelevant for our purposes whether what they're doing is good or bad, honest or dishonest, science or mumbo-jumbo. We don't need to judge their actions, we don't need to drive in the point that holocaust denial is bad. We are not an advocacy website. We just need to accurately describe what they're doing and readers will decide themselves whether they think that's a good or a bad thing. Zocky | picture popups 03:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I will say this once again: it is false to say you are "reviewing" something you are denying and lying about. I completely agree with the statement "We just need to accurately describe what they're doing." That means describing, quite accurately, it as Holocaust denial. NPOV does not imply printing false statements. And, incidentally, we are not necessarily neutral or not in need to judge their actions. We should strive for that, to be sure, but all discussions and summaries of controversial actions inherently tend towards bias of one sort or another through choice of words. We need to try to accurately describe events, not use the incorrect terms used by a government attempting to hoodwink the world by using reasonable, anodyne words for something unreasonable and disgusting. Iran is exploiting us and our propensity for ostensible neutrality to make Holocaust denial sound legitimate. Again: would we report a conference on the ways slavery was better for African Americans as a "review" of slavery, if David Duke described it as such? I suggest that the answer is, or should be, no.Minjitthemidget 05:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO putting this bit of irritating "news" on the Wikipedia main page is just giving a stage to lunacy and idiotism, not to mention blind hatred. This whole "conference" is a big joke and if there was a section on the main page for various curiosities and weird phenomena, it would belong there - definitely not on the first paragraph of the news. If president Ahmeidnijad decided to go on a freak show circus tour would that be news? I don't think so! So IMO this whole "news" bit should be removed from the main page. Find another place for it. Tweekerd 13:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a recently updated article on an item in the news, and belongs in the ITN section. The conference itself is not explictly to deny the Holocaust, and several rabbis and other groups which affirm the Holocaust have agreed to attend, so the demand that we headline it in any other way is going nowhere. Much of the above smacks of misdirected anger - if you're angry that Mahmoud Imonajihad is hosting a Holocaust revisionist conference, tell him to stop it, don't tell us to either ignore it or lie about it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I will say this yet again: let's report it correctly, and indeed not ignore it or lie about it. That means describing it accurately as a Holocaust denial conference. Or is our policy to acquiese in someone else's propaganda without any minimal assessment of our own? And regarding the Rabbis: They are all fanatical anti-zionists who have praised Ahmedinejad (not "Imonajihad") for vowing to destroy Israel. One actually does explicitly deny the Holocaust, because he is insane. As I said, they hate nearly all Jews, namely the non-ultra-orthodox and the ultra-orthodox who support Israel. In other words, they are de facto antisemites. These freaks being there should not give license to a Holocaust denial conference to be called something else. 14:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a Farsi name, please leave my transliteration out of this. (Incidentally, it's a great time for funny-sounding foreign names in the news, what with this and Frank Bananarama taking over Fiji.). I disagree that being anti-Zionist is automatically linked with Holocaust denial even if you don't, er, deny it. The ITN should explain briefly what is going on, and leave opinion (where it is sourced and neutral) to the article itself, which it covers adequately in two different sections. It may be the panto season but we're not going to go "It's the evil Vizier! Hiss! Boo!" in what should be a brief, neutral headline. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
historical revisionism is precisely the accurate, correct term for this. You will note that holocaust denial is the prime classic example for historical revisionism, even linked from the lead. The only thing we need to debate if the thing passes the notability threshold for ITN. dab (𒁳) 16:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As one of the editors writing the article about this tawdry affair, allow me to point out that putting "review the Holocaust" in quotation marks, with a redirect to Historical revisionism (negationism), expresses a solid POV. I feel Wiki should try to avoid this at all costs. Please make no mistake--I am utterly opposed to this exercise in denial, but I think Wikipedia itself has an obligation to remain neutral at all times. This linkage and the quotation marks violate the spirit of this site. Sincerely, Jeffpw 15:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Did You Know… is a bit rubbish

The 'Did You Konw…?' section on the main page needs a rethink. Such a section should include facts that are in some way surprising or thought-provoking, not just obscure. The way it is now, the only thought likely to be provoked is: "Why should I care?" For example (using facts that happen to come to mind right now): "Did you know that Nicephorus was a Byzantine emperor of the 9th Century?" [Boring] "Did you know that Nicephorus was the only Byzantine emperor killed in battle, apart from the very last emperor?" [Mildly interesting] "Did you know that the skull of the Byzantine emperor Nicephorus was made into a drinking vessel by the Bulgar khan Krum?" [Much better] Patrick Neylan 00:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Patrick Neylan

I think the editors do a fairly good job, since they are restricted to only new entries. However, I agree with you that snippets can be more intriguing -- and there's nothing stopping you from writing snippets yourself. If you want to help out, then go on over to the DYK section and give them a hand. falsedef 01:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The main problem is that the information doesn't just have to be newly added, it has to be from new articles (or newly un-stubbed articles). With over 1.5 million articles already, Wikipedia's new articles are inevitably going to be about very obscure things; most of the inherently interesting topics have articles already – not always particularly good ones, but ones with enough information that expanding them further wouldn't qualify for an entry here. This is the way that the Did you know? section has worked ever since it was set up – years ago, when the number of articles was much, much smaller. It's possible that the way it works needs a rethink; I don't know if there's anywhere else you can bring it up than here to get more attention (it is related to the Main Page, so I guess this is a good place as any) – Gurch 02:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a whole day of Eurovision Song Contest-related items would do the trick, lol. --Howard the Duck 08:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, we've gone a long time without a Eurovision DYK entry. Finally. —Cuiviénen 13:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I just saw one last weekend :p --Howard the Duck 15:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

WT:DYK is the policy page for DYK. suggestions welcome. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Did you know that Nicephorus was a Byzantine emperor of the 9th Century?" [Boring] (In your opinion). "Did you know that Nicephorus was the only Byzantine emperor killed in battle, apart from the very last emperor?" [Mildly interesting] (In your opinion) My point is just because you find certain articles that appear in this section boring it doesnt make the section crap. Its all a matter of perspective, i find theres days/weeks where nothing at all on the main page interests me. Anyway, on to the main reason i was going to add a comment. How about actually putting a link to the article in the DYK stub? Theres a rather interesting one today, Did i know that such and such got sunk to a depth of... to stop the nazi's from gaining nuclear weapons. Know i didnt. And it seems ill never know, because as theres plenty of links in there, they all go to the article for the single word rather than an article that the stub refers to. Squad'nLeedah 22:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The recent version of DYK that you are referring to is here. The relevant link in the item in question is the one that is in bold text. - BanyanTree 01:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Not in this case. The stub is from Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage and is not in that sentence, but is a small link off the next page. Rjukanbanen, while it may be the rail line that was involved, the Ryukanbanen article has nothing what so ever to do with the subject that the stub hints to. Irrelevant now as the article is no longer up on the main page anyway. Squad'nLeedah 03:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The name should be changed to "Do you care...?" —Centrxtalk • 03:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Time to put the Iranian conference story aside

It's old news already. John Hyams 17:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this opinion or fact? dposse 18:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
As it says at the top of this page, ""In the news" items are listed as they are added." Equally, ITN items are removed when they drop off the bottom of the list after enough new recently-updated articles have been added above them. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I thought the conference was still going on? Nishkid64 00:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Uh-huh, I think is still going on (I caught up on The Daily Show, haha). Kerowren 01:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe that it has ended. [8]. If anyone can find a better source.... dposse 01:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It ended on the 12th. It was a 2 day conference. See the article on wiki, or the news article here:[9]

Why are Wikipedia mods such jerks?

it pisses me off. sure, you can delete stuff that is irrelevant, but you dont need to act condesending about it. if wikipedia isnt a viable source to be cited for reports, why not let people have a little fun? i know people try to use this site as an encyclopedia, myself included, but i would still laugh if i read something that was obviously a joke. if im not mistaken, was created so people could do just that, and so people would leave wikipedia alone, but the information is so dry and hard to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14 December 2006

what im saying is that if someone deletes content and you replace it, thats okay. but why cant someone post something humorous once in awhile? and dont you dare direct me to some crappy wikipedia entry on the science of laughter. i hardly think comedy should be considered a form of vandalism.

Sometimes people do. See WP:BJAODN. Titoxd(?!?) 22:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Because this is a online encyclopedia, and I use wikipedia as a reference, because even if its not proper to use it as a source, it contains great sources. This is not a open forum for you to "post" in. This is a editable encyclopedia. Nothing more, nothing less. SubwayEater 22:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Off what SubwayEater said, this is an encyclopedia, so thus isn't really meant to be funny. [wossi]
If humor is your objective, you may be interested in contributing over at Uncyclopedia - BanyanTree 01:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
...which in no way shape or form is equal to Wikipedia of course... -- Kerowren 01:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course, if you fancy just reading about the funny or downright weird subjects that Wikipedia covers, Wikipedia:Unusual articles is a great place to hang out. GeeJo (t)(c) • 01:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The only page that always makes me laugh out loud is Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. However, it's the laughter of recognition, so maybe new users wouldn't find it so hilarious. - BanyanTree 02:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I'm a jerk because my mother didn't love me enough. howcheng {chat} 07:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's because they think they are the grooviest gang of fuzz who ever wore a badge Melburnian 11:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please clean this up

Did you know "...that Texas politician Maury Maverick, Jr. killed a bill to sentence convicted communists to death by adding a poison pill amendment to sentence suspected communists to life imprisonment?" Poor choice of words (killed a bill) when talking about actual death also. Also should say USA Texas politician. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

The sentence is meant to be ironic and the whole irony is in the choice of words. -- Kerowren 01:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on the image on the Main Page


Can someone please remove the bisected penis from the front page? Thanks. - MSTCrow 06:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm seeing it too, the question is... how did it get there? No one added it and it is shown on the history page too. Lcarsdata 06:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
lol. gross. wtf happened to that thing?--Deglr6328 06:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that is monumental vandalism. --Adamrush 06:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
AHHHHHH! MY EYES!!! The Wookieepedian 06:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Ironically, a penis is stretching the page, not itself. --Ihmhi 06:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, what gives? That's disturbing. Why is it not in the history? Valley2city 06:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
That hadda hurt! -- Kendrick7talk 06:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm going to suggest that some admin blank the main page --T-rex 06:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please fix it wtf!! im disgusted

Looks like someone got it off... thanks to whoever you are! Arynknight 06:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong - still there. G Rose 06:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Got it off? Even more disgusting! -- Kendrick7talk 06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not on my screen anymore...? Arynknight 06:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone knows what I'm talking a out when I say....WHAT THE HELL?! Whydoit ( it?) 06:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That was absolutely awful. SpikeZoft 06:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear God that made me sick. The Wookieepedian 06:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The image was deleted, but seems to be back...somebody needs to do an earth-salting deletion, I think. Its Image:Treecutoff.jpg (Obvious warning: if you haven't already seen it, you don't want to.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 06:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Liar -- it just got better! -- Kendrick7talk 06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It was incredible, really - survived on the main page for at least five minutes. G Rose 06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it was something to do with selected anniversaries. Lcarsdata 06:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How would the villain responsible be able to hide their edits and prevent the showing of the history? It is impossible to edit this talk page without edit conflict, btw.Valley2city 06:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, I'm having a hard time getting my all-important comments in. By the way, does anyone see it back again? I do. G Rose 06:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
This is clearly an exploit, isn't it? Is editing of the main page even suppose to be possible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

It's there again, can we check who added that (I can't)? --Cyktsui 06:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
They have edited a transcluded template that is nested very far down that someone didn't protect. Lcarsdata 06:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
If you fixed that, thank you ROY YOЯ 06:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Main Page Photo

I'm rather inexperienced and not quite sure how to resolve this issue, that is, a "ModBlog" photo covering the entire right corner of the main page. If someone could resolve this problem that would be great!

they just deleted the image, the link is still there. Thanks anyway, whoever. ROY YOЯ 06:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The image got removed, but there is still a link to the photo (to upload there) can someone please remove it? --Cyktsui 06:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I wish I knew how! I think an admin has to do it.Rgrizza 06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh yeah. it's back... ROY YOЯ 06:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone please get rid of that can't be that hard moderators!

I think it is a virus, admins should block the uploader(s). Seems they change the file name. - 06:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What bug me now did they do it? there must be a security hole or something the like somewhere on wiki....Whydoit ( it?) 06:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Main page vandailized

what the hell just happened 06:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Check the templates--DaveOinSF 06:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Redlinked image

Could an admin remove the redlink to a image at the top, just below the donations line? I know this is small, but still in a visible place. Thanks. 06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's back

Can this vandal be blocked? OneCyclone 06:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know who the vandal is/was? (And why do I get the feeling it is/was an IP?) --JB Adder | Talk 06:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC) They probably have something to do with it. Sorry /b/, WhereAmI like Wikipedia better. No I had nothing to do with it, wikipedia.--WhereAmI 06:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone added a disgusting picture in the main page

I saw a very disgusting picture showing a penis in the main page. Luckily, I was not browsing Wiki in public. It was fixed right before I start typing these words. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

I think the offending picture is off

Main Page

There appears to be a picture of what I think is a deformed bleeding penis on the main page and I was wondering if an Admin could remove it. Thanks.--Flyingcheese 06:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on how the photo got to the main page....

Could the admininstrators explain how did the photo appear in a protected page and who did it? As I can't seem to find any history on that. If it's a loophole on Wikipedia, is there any solution for it? --Cyktsui 06:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at all the various templates that are on the page to see if anyone added it to them, but I couldn't see it. I'm really wondering how that happened. That was utterly weird. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure, but I (pointed by somebody else above) think what happened was Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 15 missed getting protected before showing up on the main page. Like I said, not sure, though.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 06:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I see what happened. It was on that page. User:Earthofsprit kept adding various images to the page with deceptive edit summaries. They're indef blocked now (obviously). Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 07:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
No wonder we didn't catch that as the edit summary was misleading! It's good that it has been identified and hopefully we can avoid that in the future. --Cyktsui 07:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This link was posted on 4chan: must've been done through there, I guess. 07:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work for whoever found out about 4chan! But looking at history of Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 15 does not provide any clue.... I wonder if the administrator who fixed the problem can let us know what happened. --Cyktsui 07:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

See above post by me. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 07:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Wikipedia met the same problem.

4chan takes credit

In the popular /b/ forum, someone has taken credit. Since most /b/ threads have a life expectancy of 20 minutes, I have archived the post. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You might need to convert it into an image; not all of us can take webarchives. --JB Adder | Talk 11:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
As I said above already, 4chan had something to do with. the link you provided will never work, as the articles are delete on /b/ too often from posting. Yes, someone from /b/ claimed credit, the link will never work, and I already told you /b/ did it. However, saying 4chan and /b/ did it is like suing wikipedia because the definition of yourself was biased, users post things there, 4chan had nothing to do with it, just one of the users.--WhereAmI 18:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ipswich serial killer deserves mention?

I, for one, am not entirely thrilled with the inclusion of the investigation into a serial killer that killed five prostitutes in Ipswich, England. Please tell me if even more heinous incidents in the past, like the Prospect Avenue murders of 2004 in Kansas City (as many as 12 women linked to one murderer; Terrance Gillard is awaiting special trial on those murder charges), BTK, or anything comparable worldwide have been included on the front page before. --KHill-LTown 01:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Entries are considered on their own merits, not on precedents, and "heinousness" of an event is up to your POV. If you really do want to go into statistics, the number of fatalities so far in this case matches that of the '''Amish School Shooting''' mentioned in ITN a while back. Albeit that was a single event, but then you could compare this serial killer case with Jack the Ripper – again, five fatalities. Note that I'm not saying that five killings is the bar for inclusion. I'm just saying that using precedents to back up or discredit an entry is a bad idea. In this case, the murders are getting worldwide news coverage and we have an updated article. Technically the requirements for inclusion are met. GeeJo (t)(c) • 01:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
As an addendum, I do sometimes wonder why people get so hung up about notability of ITN items. No one protests when DYK gets entries about obscure twelfth-century Romanian warlords (though Eurovision entries do seem to get some people worked up). In my opinion, if an article is current, and notable enough to avoid AFD, it can be considered for ITN. GeeJo (t)(c) • 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems ITN can't win. Further above is someone complaining of its exclusion (non-incusion?) and here is someone complaining of its inclusion. On its merits, it's been featured on UK, Australian and US TV network news. Just because something of greater "heinousness" has missed out in the past has no bering on a current consideration. ITN inclusions rely on editor submissions. If something is never suggested; no matter how newsworthy, encyclopedic and noteworthy; I'm the prince of Bel-Air.

That's it! One more complaint and no one shall have ITN! ;) jokes ;) --Monotonehell 03:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, lets get rid of it.--Greasysteve13 06:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it; why is no one complaining about the Chinese River Dolphin or the election of a president in an unrecognized state that sat on ITN for days? I agree the item is questionable, but I fear we won't be able to please everyone. -- tariqabjotu 20:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Those things you meantioned are heaps more important.--Greasysteve13 11:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Somebody is being questioned over the murders. I think this should be added. [10].    Codu    talk    contribs    email   12:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a crucial news item, not because of the number of murders but because of the effect they're having in the UK: it's already causing a major debate about the role of the state in the prohibition of drugs, the suppression of prostitution and the combined effects of these policies. It's notable also for the internet angle: one of the arrested suspects has a Myspace page which has been mined by the press for photos and information - first time that's happened in such a major case, though I may be wrong. In short, I think the inclusion of the story has less to do with the fact that five women have been murdered, horrific though that may be, than it has to do with the cultural effect the whole thing is having.Bedesboy 20:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there was a shooting in Canada recently where the shooter had a website and photos were taken from it and stuff (we have an article on it). --WikiSlasher 10:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Announcements about Wikibooks

Is it possible to make major announcements about Wikibooks on the main Wikipedia page? Robinhw 11:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What about one of your nice boxes with:

Wikibooks! From books for university such as Special Relativity to books for infants such as Big Cats Wikibooks has a book for everyone.

Robinhw 12:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really; we have nine sister projects, not even including other-language Wikipedias, Wikibooks is only one of them. The English Wikipedia may be the biggest Wikimedia project, but it's still a separate project, and isn't really the place to promote other ones. Anyway, is that really a major annoucement? Looks more like an advert to me. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikibooks is Wikipedia's closest relative in terms of purpose. It aims to give students anywhere in the world free access to otherwise expensive factual texts. My guess is that Wikibooks will go through the same development cycle as Wikipedia but over a period of 3-5 times as long because books are time consuming. This is why some publicity to draw in Wikipedia contributors would be useful. In 2 years Wikipedia went from a big encyclopaedia to the biggest encyclopaedia, the growth was explosive. Having 3-5 times the lead time, in 6-10 years Wikibooks will probably be THE source for on-line textbooks. But a bit more publicity could cut this lead time in half. So, yes, I am asking for an advert! Robinhw 10:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like we need a place for sister project of the week. (Personally, I'd like wiktionary to get more mention.) —Pengo talk · contribs 02:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Way doesn't Wikibook fuse with Wikisource, the development would be faster.--Eternal Imortal 16:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

From a recent new user

It would be great if there was a very clear way for folks to post comments on featured articles if they want to. I mean a redirect from "discuss this article" to this page whenever a page is featured (or something like that). I inadvertently went to the article's talk page for a featured article to post a comment, and think that was incorrect. I spent something like 20 minutes looking for the right link to post, because I knew it had to be there somewhere. Please consider it. Thank you.NinaEliza (talk contribs count logs email) 18:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The article's talk page is always the proper location to discuss the article, even if it is on the Main Page (as a Featured Article or anything else). Those discussing it here are doing so in the wrong place, not you. —Cuiviénen 18:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for the information.NinaEliza (talk contribs count logs email) 18:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Help! Vandalized User Page!

I didn't know where else to go for help because most of my user page was deleted. Can you please restore it to it's original form? Can you also trace the IP that vandalized it. Please and thank you! Season Greetings!--kitsumiti 19:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. I reverted back to your last edit. If you go to 'history' on your user page you can see who did it.--Bryson 19:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay thank you Bryson! I found out the IP of the vndalizer is Can you please give them heck from me? Thanks! --kitsumiti 19:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the best we can do now is just warn him, and that's what Bryson109 did. Nishkid64 22:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Vandals do this for attention, so "giving them heck" is the worst thing you can do. Revert, warn, ignore. That's how you deal with them. Koweja 23:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd say just revert and ignore. Warning just eggs them on. Eventually they get bored with being destructive. --Monotonehell 10:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Completely agree. Aran|heru|nar 04:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks everybody! I havn't been here for a while soI can forget a few things.kitsumiti 19:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Heavy Britain in OTD

I have no particular objection to Britain, but it seems as if we have too many British entries: two entries dealing explicitly with Britain and one that deals with Britain and the future US. However, before I replace one of them (probably Cromwell) with something else significant from December 16 (probably the Polish president assassination), I'd like to see some others' opinions. —Cuiviénen 01:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I object. You are comparing Britain to the rest of the encyclopedia. It may not be that Britain has too many entries, but that other entries you are comparing it with are too few in content. The point of Wikipedia is to add true knowledge not remove it. Merge, maybe, but thats for another discussion. Don't delete simply because theres alot of facts!! Add facts to other entries. In an encyclopedia, there are entries with an article each for many variants. This is inevitable. Sometimes theres more to talk about one topic then another. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
The various sections don't coordinate, and sometimes we get a lot of articles on the main page on the same topic. There was a day where the headline articles in the news section, Featured Article, and Did you know were all about Poland. I personally don't think it's a big deal, but you can suggest articles in the main page here: Wikipedia:In the news, Wikipedia:Did you know? and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests Borisblue 05:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
As alluded to, many of the entries listed on December 16 fail the requirements of WP:SA#Criteria for listing items on this set of pages. Either the events are not moderate to great historical significance, or they are still relatively incomplete or stub articles. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The emphasis on Britain is an artefact of the fact that en.wikipedia is the english language Wikipedia and Britain, having a first world, internetworked, cosmopolitan society is home to a large number of Wikipedia contributors and readers. Robinhw 10:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone may complain there are too many American articles... 13:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course. However, the guidelines, especially for individual sections of the Main Page, are to always have no more than two articles, usually only one unless absolutely unavoidable, about a specific topic or country. Of course, we often have many articles spaced across the Main Page about the same country or topic, but that is neither here nor there. Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries says, "If at all possible, the array of topics should be varied, and not exhibit, just for example, tech-centrism or Amerocentrism," which includes Britannocentricism. —Cuiviénen 15:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, variety is preferred, but replacing the UK stuffs with some other items that fail the criteria for listing items there is not the solution. We would just end up with a different complaint from a different complainer. Gabriel Narutowicz ? Seems too stubby to me. Please consider beefing up other pages with historical significance on that day and then feature them instead. -- PFHLai 20:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I like the first Canterbury Pilgrims reaching Christchurch, New Zealand, i.e. very far away from the UK. Would this still be Britannocentric ? --PFHLai 20:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Top Bar

Time this took up a bit less space. The bit about donations could be merged with the bit below. 10:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Click dismiss (after you've donated! :) ) you never need gaze upon it again. --Monotonehell 10:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't answer my question. Suppose I don't want to donate: it doesn't cause WP any harm to squash that. 11:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't donate but it disappeared. How can I bring it back ? Frigo 12:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
It will come back if you log out --Melburnian 12:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
If you don't want to see the donations message, just create an account. This not only hides the message but allows you to customize the interface however you want – Gurch 16:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


Please remove the "Donate via PayPal" button on every page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

See the button labelled "dismiss" on the right-hand side? Click it. Then create an account. That way you don't see the standard non-fundraiser message either – Gloy 16:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
There isn't a dismiss button. 18:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Only logged in users see the dismiss button. Perhaps the template should be fixed so it can be dismissed for IP addresses as well? Koweja 18:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't see the dismiss button either. Strange... FellowWikipedian 01:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


Why do we not have links to recently deceased notables like the German Wiki? I've always found that very interesting. Samsara (talk  contribs) 13:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2006 (talkcontribs)

We do put them in the In the News section, under certain circumstances. See Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page for what gets listed. For recently deceased people, the qualification is:
A death should only be placed on ITN if it meets one of the following criteria: (a) the deceased was in a high ranking office of power at the time of death, (b) the deceased was a key figure in their field of expertise, and died unexpectedly or tragically, (c) the death has a major international impact that affects current events. The modification or creation of multiple articles to take into account the ramifications of a death is a sign that it meets the third criterion.
So if the death is newsworthy (but just being famous and dieing doesn't qualify) it will get listed. Koweja 17:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The link Recent deaths is at the bottom of the ITN section on MainPage. --PFHLai 19:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


Wangchuck? That's really the name of the Bhutanese royal family? Oh my God ...

Thank God this didn't happen on a weekday. The vandalism would have been off the scale until we protected the article. Daniel Case 19:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

English Bill of Rights 1689

The summary says that the English Bill of Rights 1689 asserts positive rights, but the rights listed in the article are all negative ("freedom from") or at least arguably so ("freedom to"). —Tamfang 20:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"x of which are Featured Articles"

I think that it's kind of strange that the "featured articles" text on the main page header is in title caps. I.e. "1198 of which are Featured Articles" instead of "1198 of which are featured articles". Isn't it so that this should just be the latter, i.e. "featured articles", instead of with a capital for every word? function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 16:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that bit's just been added and still needs refining. I've already edited it once to add a missing comma; someone else has reworded it. I've just changed "Featured Articles" to lowercase as you suggest; it'll probably be changed again soon, so I suggest you check back tomorrow and see if it's still to your liking – Gurch 16:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the featured article count from the header. Please revert me if its inclusion was discussed somewhere and reflects consensus, but this statistic already was added to the top of the main page (in the Today's featured article section, where it looks much better and makes far more sense to newbies). —David Levy 17:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, that's the end of that, I guess – Gurch 23:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually I kind of miss it. dpod 18:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Zarqawi article deleted?

What happened to the Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi article?--Azer Red Si? 17:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I just noticed that too. JARED(t)  17:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
When sensitive information (such as a Wikipedia user's personal contact information) is put into an article as vandalism, the entire article is deleted and then every edit but the offending edit is restored. This leads to FAs (most commonly) being deleted for short periods of time, usually less than a minute. It doesn't happen too often. —Cuiviénen 19:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Merci. JARED(t)  19:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Who changes it?

Who changes the main page articles? Comperr 05:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not just one person, it's a whole process. Each section is handled by a different project. See the help boxes at the top of this page for the individual sections. --Monotonehell 06:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Comperr (talkcontribs) 16:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

{{indefblocked}} 18:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sidebar changed

Just in case anyone noticed... (I didn't!) the sidebar has changed. I've started a little thread at the talk page of the redesign page. Carcharoth 10:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured Pictures

There should be a way to nominate pictures for the main page without the pics having to be featured first. Although the title is "featured pictures," many stunning and amazing pics are not featured. There should be some sort of a voting process. Seldon1 15:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There is. --Maxamegalon2000 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


Great job on the sidebar

Great job! Now the "search box" is lower on the screen, so I am forced to scroll down to get to it. I am very happy that this change took place. I wish you the best of luck with future changes! Maybe next time the box could change positions or disappear when the mouse pointer hovers above it. The great thing is that, if changes keep making Wikipedia worse, all articles are soon going to end up like what is written above about Dr. R. Vaithilingam (I see that the Vaithilingam part was removed; it was a rambling about some professor in India, written in poor English). 21:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you running on 640x480 resolution or something? —Centrxtalk • 21:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The box could feasibly disappear at 800x600 if you were using Internet Explorer and had toolbars and other dodgy junk cluttering the thing up. If that's the case here, then get rid of it rather than moaning at Wikipedia – Gurch 23:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I use Firefox with the navigation bar only, at an 800x600 resolution. With the scroll bar up, I only see half of the search bar. I can write but I must scroll down to see the buttons, if I need to.--cloviz 23:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so it does, if you use the default skin. Yes, that is a bit of a problem. Perhaps "interaction" should be below "search"? – Gurch 23:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps I can just roll the wheel and exercise my middle finger; I don't think it's fatal. I just found out that I don't see the search box at all when there's that bar for having several pages in a single window (don't know how to say in English). No problem, more strenght for my finger.--cloviz 23:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Or repetitive strain injury of the knuckle (I'm serious). Carcharoth 17:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the sidebar search box positioning is being discused here. I also linked to this above. For now, a good tip (or workaround if you like) for jumping to the search box is using Alt-F. At least this works in Firefox. Other browsers and other operating systems probably have similar shortcuts to jump to a search box, or to places on a page. Carcharoth 00:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. On Windows and Firefox 2, it's Alt + Shift + F (Alt + F just opens the File menu) – Gurch 11:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

An honest vandalism

Wow, that was certainly interesting. It's not everyday you see a vandal actually admit he just vandalized something. In regards to this. Strange. DoomsDay349 23:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think if you blank a page that appears automatically. I just guess because I see it often.--cloviz 23:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Shit, I was about to say that. :( 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yup, ever since the implementation of the recent automatic edit summary system, its quite common. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 23:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Automatic edit summaries, implemented for blanking and page creation as reported in the 2006-11-20 Signpost. - BanyanTree 00:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
A very, very useful feature, I might add. Koweja 00:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO considering this is possible it should just block the edit 18:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Then they'd just stop doing a simple blank and start inserting pictures of taboo body parts. The more clever you get the more clever they get. It becomes a war of escalation. --Monotonehell 09:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that there are a few (though not many) legitimate uses for page blanking, such as non-admin users clearing their own talk pages or subpages. GeeJo (t)(c) • 10:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


When I am not logged in, and and just looking around, the font got smaller between now and , say 3 hours ago. What is going on? --Lionheart Omega 03:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I just realised this. It is really small. Even when I hold down control and use the mouse wheel, it is either small or REALLY REALLY HUGE! Can someone please rectify this? It looks awful. Short stop 03:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought I had accidentally toggled some annoying zoom feature of my browser, but it seems the fonts have gotten unreadably small. -- 03:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes - I'm having the same problem! --Anthony5429 03:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Wait; it seems to be fixed now. Anyone know what happened? --Anthony5429 03:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Apparently [11]. —Centrxtalk • 03:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

guilty therefore... longer allegedly. --JohnO 13:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Try WP:ERRORS. -- 13:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing more people trust the journal Nature than the Libyan government. Also, they can still appeal to the supreme court. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-12-19 14:15Z
They may have been convicted, but that doesn't mean they're guilty, especially when we're talking about Libya. The nurses and the doctor are widely believed to be innocent by the international community and top HIV experts have proven the HIV infection is not their fault. Please make yourself familiar with the case before making such erroneous statements. TodorBozhinov 19:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually (and as was addressed at WP:ERRORS) the wording was, indeed, wrong. It said they were convicted for allegedly doing something, which doesn't make sense; the wording has been changed accordingly.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 05:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what country it is. They've been convicted and/or found guilty. It would be quite wrong to say someone is guilty since that's not something we can decide, no matter what the evidence or country Nil Einne 10:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Citing SPECIFIC front page (including content) for an arbitrary day

I've been looking around for a way of citing a permanent URL to the front page for a specific day and can't find any. Is there a way? As far as I can tell, the permanent URL refers to the template rather than the content. But what about if somebody wants to cite a specific combination of articles as they appeared on the front page of the wikipedia on a specific day (as, in fact, I want to right now). IS this possible? dpod 18:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, because of the way the front page is set up, you can't get a permanent URL that would match an old version. But there is a workaround. Construct another page (in your own userspace) containing the specific template versions used on that day. Since DYK doesn't keep old versions, if you wanted to use that section you'd need to subst: in the old template information onto the new page itself. Once the page is set up, either take a screenshot and use that as the reference, or use the URL of the page itself, and explain that it's just a copy of how the page appeared on that date. GeeJo (t)(c) • 08:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Given how important the Wikipedia is becoming—and the large amount of metadiscussion about it—I wonder if it would not be wise to develop a way of capturing specific front pages other than by using a work-around. We expect to be able to capture the front pages of print newspapers, for example, and even more volatile things like the layout of the Opinion section of the WP online is now recoverable. How does one go about suggesting this as a desideratum? dpod 22:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, by leaving a message here, I guess. You can, in fact, see how all four sections of the Main Page looked at an older time:
Gurch 22:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Math people!

"that the world's longest lasting lightbulb is 105 years old and has been burning continuously since 1976?"

Does anyone else have a problem with the math here? As far as I am reading this, theres a light bulb thats been lasting for 105 years and its been going since 1976? Or is it very old and 105 years old but has only been used since 1976? Because this is not clear to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

In the article it explains, they had to stop it for 10 minutes to move it. The Guy From Ipanema 23:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw some problems with that. It makes sense though since it links to Centennial light or something like that. Nishkid64 02:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
For those coming along who may be confused, as I was, what this is referring to, see Centennial Light. Dismas|(talk) 03:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A new wikilanguage sister project

I propose a new major wikiproject Wikilanguage or Wiki Linguistics which specializes in the teaching of all languages. I have looked over the internet and have found some sites which do have several of the major languages giving knowledge of learning them but this wuould be huge. This would provide all the information for learning languages such as most of the 250 languages that already have wikipedias. Learning a language is a major infomration source but wikipedia does not have this. Anybody interested in starting this ? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not really the place to propose such a thing. Maybe try somewhere in [12]. --Monotonehell 11:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
You've described Wikiversity. See their v:Topic:Foreign Language Learning. - BanyanTree 12:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Dah - do I feel silly now? lol --Monotonehell 20:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)