Talk:Main Page

Purge page cache

Sections of this page older than three days are automatically archived.

Main page error reports

To report an error you have noticed on the current main page or tomorrow's main page please add it to the appropriate section below. You can do this by pressing the [edit] button to the right of the appropriate below section's heading. Also, please sign your post using four tildes (~~~~)

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 08:06 on 30 June 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Hamad City

... that Hamad City in Gaza was largely destroyed within minutes?

This supposed fact is not clearly stated in the article. The nomination indicates that it's referring to airstrikes in December 2023. It appears that about 5 apartment blocks were destroyed on that occasion but the complex had about 50 and so was not "largely destroyed". Most of it must have remained because there was a subsequent Battle of Hamad in which 100 buildings were cleared and that took two weeks. A source from that article has photos which seem to show intact apartment blocks still standing at that time – March 2024. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: This should be pulled immediately. Spreading disinformation about the Israel-Hamas war is not a good look. It appears that the nominator Havradim noticed the mistake and offered a corrected hook [1], but Lightburst rejected this and approved the original. I wouldn't recommend a hasty swapping out of hooks though; ALT0a should get a proper review before being used. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that the nominator effectively identified the issue as they proposed a modification to the hook based on a "closer reading". That modification was rejected and it is surprising that the unmodified hook was then run as it was clearly erroneous. (edit conflict) Andrew🐉(talk) 07:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

 Pulled. Yes, this seems to have been a basic fact checking error, the article text (and the source) don't say what the hook says at all. The reviewer noted that there was a slight inaccuracy between the five airstrikes reported, and the five buildings mentioned in ALT0a, but then went back and approved ALT0, which the nominator had already noted did not match the sourcing, after reviewing again. I'd think as Soujourner says, maybe a modified version of ALT0a matching the wording used in the article would be best here. If this doesn't get reinstated today, I'd suggest giving the nom another chance another day, as I don't think the nominator was at fault for this. Also pinging @SL93 and Z1720: too, as promoter and admin. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

David Marchese

Doesn't the David Marchese hook break WP:DYKBLP? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I would say no considering David Marchese was open about that during an interview. SL93 (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

While I don't doubt that it is sourced, WP:DYKBLP is a higher criterion than regular WP:BLP: Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided. (emphasis not mine) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's "unduly" when the subject doesn't make anything of it. Pinging nominator Spaghettifier, reviewer UndercoverClassicist, promoter Sohom Datta, and prep to queue mover Z1720. SL93 (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I also don't think it's undue nor does it really reflect negatively on Marchese. It's a lighthearted mistake from long ago that he volunteered in good humor for a podcast segment devoted to mistakes. It's not like the hook accuses him of committing malpractice. Spaghettifier (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts, the podcast very much gives of the vibes of a humorous anecdote rather than a "I don't want to talk about this ever again". Also, the hook makes it very clear that this incident was a accident and not a intentional act, making it hard to misinterpret as a deliberate negative action. Sohom (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done There's consensus that this is not an error. Schwede66 05:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Next-but-one DYK

In the second hook, why not put the appropriate quotes around "Lunch"? It would have the added benefit of making the hook funny. Primergrey (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@PSA, Launchballer, Sohom Datta, and Ganesha811: thoughts on this hook suggestion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection if the nominator approves. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Same here :) Sohom (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Fine by me.--Launchballer 03:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

• 1985 – Ryan White, a poster child for HIV/AIDS in the U.S., was denied re-admission to his school, having developed the disease due to treatment for hemophilia.
  This seem doubly badly worded to me. I have no idea what "poster child for HIV/AIDS in the U.S." means and "due to" sounds like the wrong word choice as well. "Through"? Srnec (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  "Ryan White, a famous HIV/AIDS patient in the U.S., was denied re-admission to his school as he had contracted the disease from hemophilia treatments"? Does that work? Bremps... 05:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd replaced "as he had" with "after he", but yes, it works. Srnec (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

   Done – Schwede66 05:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(July 5)

Monday's FL

(July 1, tomorrow)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

---

Main page general discussion

Portals on the mainpage

we shouldn't be voting, for goodness sakes, it's a matter of consensus The oppose votes say that there are too few FLs and they are differently structured, but the remedy is to have an FL per week, and for every day, a new section displayed so that it'll not be that stale. Which brings me, lets cut the voting and do some real discussion so we can get over this. --Howard the Duck 16:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to begin a collaboration for FLs, such as starting a WikiProject. For now, I think that a weekly FL would be nice, and then we rotate a section everyday for seven days (as noted above). I'm going to propose the project to WP:COUNCIL (like WP:WPGA), but the "Today's featured list" should be discussed somewhere else.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC) You can see the proposal here--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 21:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Several people have commented that there aren't enough lists for "list of the day" to work. There are currently 246 featured lists. Going by the Featured list log, new FLs are being added at rate of 10-15 month. Taking the lower figure (say 3 per day), plus the current total of 246 lists, it would take us 368 days to get through them all, before we had to repeat. (Over 368 days, 122 new FLs can be expected, plus the 246 exsisting: 122+246=368). So, it is not true to say we'd repeat ourselves in just 246 days - the actual figure is over a year. Now, those are the facts. If you feel Main Page content should *never* be repeated, then that would be a reason to oppose. On the other hand, you may be happy with repeating less than once a year. Tompw (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So I'm proposing that they be added to the main page. At the mo' there are not nearly enough for them to be added every day, so I would suggest This week's featured portal instead. Another idea I had was that portals featured for a week on the main page should change their content every day during that week, rather than once a month or week or however often they currently update.

Here is my proposed way to fit them into the main page. This would of course replace the current Welcome to Wikpedia box on the top of the page:

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 6,843,355 articles in English

This week's featured portal Featured portals included here </noinclude> Finger Lakes

Other portals: Arts Biography Geography History Mathematics Science Society Technology All portals What is a portal?

|} The biggest problem with this design is that the Welcome to Wikipedia box now has a lot of white space. I tried including the Overview...A–Z index inside that box, but it didn't end up looking very good. I am more than open (read: asking) for suggestions about how to remedy this problem. I expect my wikicode is also a bit messy.

So? Atropos 00:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a simple link like the one at the bottom would be sufficient:

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 6,843,355 articles in English

Arts Biography Geography History

Mathematics Science Society Technology

Featured: Australia All portals

--Howard the Duck 04:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea, and the Howard the Duck's implementation of it. Gracenotes^T § 04:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What I like about the first is that the one that'll show up would be random while mine would be fixed. If anyone can do a random FPOR on the second option it'll be great. --Howard the Duck 05:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Eugh. That's exactly the opposite of what I'm looking for. Just another little line of text which attracts no attention. Further, mine is only random because I pulled from the Featured content page. Atropos 17:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this one?

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 6,843,355 articles in English	Arts Biography Geography	History Mathematics Science	Society Technology All portals
Featured: Australia

If someone can only enclose the featured portal link within the portal box and use a scandalous color. --Howard the Duck 10:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You might be better off promoting Wikipedia:Featured portals, and making that page more visible. Have a look at "what links here", for that, and see how widely linked it is. Carcharoth 00:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone fix the indent here, please ? --PFHLai 05:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. howcheng {chat} 06:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing this, Howcheng. --PFHLai 08:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I like this proposal, but it may be better to have four columns, the last in the third being Philosophy, Religion, and Spirituality, and the fourth being Culture; Featured portal:Trains; and All Portals. -Oreo Priest 22:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

section edit break

That's not bad, but there's a rather annoying blank space underneath the header, occupied only by the featured portal's name, on the right. I think that we should have a specific portal featured. We don't merely have a link to WP:FA on the front page; we have a featured article. Why? For recognition, and to show off some of our best content people would not otherwise see. Gracenotes^T § 17:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone can come up with a good layout, I'd support this. I'd even be prepared to see one of the main portals dropped (are they all featured?). And can someone fix the annoying location of the edit link for this section? Carcharoth 00:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Only 3 of the 8 portals listed are featured. --Quiddity 01:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How about a drop-down list of FPors? --Howard the Duck 13:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a drop-down selection box would look ugly (in different ways in different browser/OSs) and inconsistent with the rest of the design.

As the only bolded link in the entire header, I think Portal:List of portals is more than sufficient.

There is also a large stability problem with many portals, where they get created, raised to good/featured status, and then left unmaintained for months on end.

I believe those 5 other portals on the Main page need to be raised to Featured status, before any other changes are seriously discussed. --Quiddity 17:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

About the Portals and Tables

I've got to put on one of DeBono's Six Thinking Hats (black) and say that the tables shown here are extremely hard to use and could use with some default templates that put some of the div, font, etc boilerplate code out of the way. Other than that how about pushing the portal list to the centre and putting the featured portal on the far right. That would rid of the whitespace problem... Merosonox 04:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's what it might look like

There are 6 proposed templates used here:

• Template:Welcome to Wikipedia Box - Wikipedia + Stats
• Template:Wikipedia Portal Box - list of regular/main portals
• Template:Merosonox/Featured Portal Small Test - Smaller portal images (not complete)
• Template:Wikipedia Mainpage Strapline - Overview, Editing, ...
• Template:Main Page banner - ???
• Template:Merosonox/Wikipedia Mainpage Banner Test - the whole shebang

Merosonox 05:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That breaks the page width at 800x600. --Quiddity 08:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that the picture is imapprotiate. It does not add much, really. Gracenotes^T § 20:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I'd agree, but adding pic is eye-catching. There must another way to direct a reader to the FPOR. --Howard the Duck 15:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As the only bolded link in the entire header, I think All portals is sufficient. --Quiddity 18:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a picture is rather necessary. You're whole perspective, though: it should be a portal section, not just a part of the header section. Atropos 01:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Cricket on the DYK

Is there a lot of activity on the cricket-related pages these days? It seems like every day there's some trivial bit of cricket-stuff in the DYK list and today there are two. The current archive lists nine cricket-related factoids used over the last 200 or so bits. I don't have a problem with it, I'm just curious why the DYK box is now apparently divided equally into scientific, political, artistic and cricket-related points. ;-) Matt Deres 00:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

People work on what they want to work on. Right now, some people are expanding a lot of cricket articles, and these articles are being suggested for the Did you Know section. This work undoubtedly improves the encyclopedia and so can hardly be objected to – Gurch 02:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

At least this is better than the Eurovision we had before... --Howard the Duck 02:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which... ShadowHalo 02:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

At least it's not on DYK. :p --Howard the Duck 09:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I remember someone was complaining about this before. The next update had no cricket related items and nor did the next 6 or so updates. I was planning to count the updates until we next had something cricket related but got busy and ended up canning the idea. But my point is that that observer bias probably comes into play here. The trend that people think they see may not be as severe as they think. Remember that people even see patterns when something is completely random. Bear in mind too that as DYK is updated more then once a day, if you only visit the main page once a day or so, it could easily happen that you will see cricket related items 3-4 days in w row even though we may have only had them in like 4/15 updates or something Nil Einne 16:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There is another today. As I specifically stated above, I'm not actually complaining about it, just wondering why it is like it is. I don't see that many soccer-related bits or baseball-related bits, for example. Matt Deres 01:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on volunteer editors, they edit what they wish. It's simply that there's currently a number of rabid cricket editors active who are improving and nominating cricket related articles for the main page. Recently there was a number of rabid Eurovision Song Contest editors who where doing the same there. See WP:BIAS. (nb. "rabid" used in the non-pejorative) --Monotonehell 05:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CRIC tells me that the most recent 6 of the 13 cricket FAs have been completed in the last three months. As for cricket admins and DYK, rabid folks like ALoan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Blnguyen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are known for being cricket tragics on Wikipedia. As well as that, Andrew nixon (talk · contribs), Evadb (talk · contribs), Vimalkalyan (talk · contribs) have had their articles posted. IllyTea 05:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rabid? Shrug. New or greatly expanded articles only get on DYK if people (a) write them and (b) nominate them. Have you noticed the occasional series of Eurovision articles, US Navy landing craft, subjects relating to the Tagore family, Japanese painters, runestones, etc?

Since 1 May, the DYKs that I have written (or rewritten) that have made the Main Page are four cricketers, the only Andorran World Heritage Site, a South African doctor, a Church of England clergyman, and a judge. I have been writing up articles using published obituaries for a year or two now - it is not my fault that three prominent cricketers have died within a few days (and who could resist the fourth, John Elicius Benedict Bernard Placid Quirk Carrington Dwyer).

In April, I had two cricketers, an 18th century slave, an English country house, a Roman Catholic clergyman, a disappeared London market, a writer of early cookery books, a politician, a lawyer, and the brother of a prime minister (plus 18 articles by other people that I nominated).

Back in March was another three British politicians and one politician's wife, a German author, one cricketer and one cricket tour, a French tennis administrator, a Native American soldier, a Danish painter, a son of Mao Tse Tung, and a baronet (plus nominating 17 articles by other people).

Near the top of my lengthy "to do" list are several military officers, a baron, a gynaecologist, and a political activist. Slightly further down are all sorts of random stuff, and near the bottom are shedloads of stubby cricketer articles. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Plurality?

I've never heard the word "plurality" used in the UK. In fact, I suspect many British people wouldn't know its meaning (certainly not out of context). I understood this was the US term for a majority that is not absolute. But in the UK, we call this simply a majority, while an absolute majority is called an "overall majority" or something similar. As the English Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a specifically US Engish site, is it appropriate to use "plurality" when discussing UK-related topics? (see WP:ENGVAR) JRawle (Talk) 14:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? I am skeptical of this notion of "a majority that is not absolute" — sounds like an oxymoron to me. But whatever. It would be fine for the blurb to say "the most seats" or something like that; but it definitely should not say "majority"; that would be directly misleading for many readers. Doops | talk 15:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Plurality is neither an American nor a British term. It's a neutral term, though one used somewhat rarely. People not understanding the word, which is not really a hard one, is no reason not to include it on the Main Page. "The most seats" is an awkward and unnecessary construction. —Cuiviénen 16:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just use overall majority. Anyway it sounds better. Wiki.user 17:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, except the SNP DOESN'T have a majority. Doops | talk 18:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Pls see Plurality and Majority. Maybe a link to these pages should be placed on ITN whenever these terms are used (hopefully, correctly). --74.14.16.14 02:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I never knew what it meant until the Dutch elections some time ago. I have lived for the majority of my life in Britain and never ever saw the word. So for those of you who said I didn't have a good education in Europe, well heres more proof that the political jargon can be a little unknown. Happy VE DAY!!!Tourskin 03:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me give the helpful definition here:

20 bananas, 10 apples, 10 oranges, 10 berries, 10 strawberries.

As you can see, the bananas have the largest group, but do not constitue over 50% of the fruit there. Therefore, a plurality of the fruit are bananas (the largest group where there is no clear majority). Tourskin 05:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

On reflection I now see no reason why this word causes so much trouble, there are plenty of other words that seem confusing.Tourskin 06:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It causes trouble because not many people in the UK have come across it, as mentioned above. I cannot recall ever coming across it in UK media coverage of elections either here or elsewhere. The term "majority" seems to be the nearest commonly used equivalent, qualified by "absolute" when needed. Bazza 12:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking up 'plurality' in my OED gives: 3. (US) A majority that is not absolute. Whereas 'majority' is: 1. the greater number or part of a group etc. It's a purely American term and should not be used. You can only use 'majority' in the American sense over here when there are two parties involved. --84.67.250.92 16:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Who said it was American? I got quite a hammering from some users in previous discussions who thought they were high and mighty for knowing a political word that a European like me didn't.Tourskin 00:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason you've never seen it used before is that parties rarely win pluralities in UK elections, and hardly ever form coalition governments. They usually win majorities (that is, absolute majorities), and when they win a plurality they usually form a minority government very quickly. However, the new voting systems in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have led to coalition governments becoming the norm; it was only inevitable that the introduction of the word 'plurality' should follow. In addition, Doops is right to say that eferring to the SNP's win as a 'majority' is a nonsensical idea, since they got less than 50% of the seats; they got a minority just like everyone else. If plurality is too confusing for readers, either add a hyperlink (that's what hyperlinks are there for!) or say something longer like "the SNP wins the most seats but does not win an overall majority". Polocrunch

Recent admin account hijacking

Bottom line: make sure your password is hard to guess. --Monotonehell 01:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The Main page seems to have been deleted

Where the main page go? Strange indeed, but I'm sure it'll be fixed. --黒雲 user:Qaddosh 01:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Aww, shucks...I liked the heading before, but oh well. I suppose the change makes sense. --黒雲 user:Qaddosh 03:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What's going on?--69.92.235.188 01:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello there, I went to the main page and was told the article did not exist. I checked again and someone had written asking where it was... so where is it?... I tried to edit any vandalism but I did not see a history--Kirkoconnell 01:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure someone who knows what the hell they're doing will fix it, I just wanna know how this was allowed to happen. Cornell Rockey 01:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

See the deletion log. Doops | talk 01:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What just happened, the page wasnt unprotected then vandalized because there was no history, it must have been actualy deleted... Urdna 01:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I found that although http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page did not work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MainPage (Minus the underscore) did. i tried to set up a redirect but I don't know if THAT is what fixed it or if it just got fixed. that was a weird issue. I hope to get a clear picture as to what caused it. I think it was a change in the template or something. But what do I know... --Kirkoconnell 01:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I did a little research (looked at the logs) and discovered the page was deleted by AndyZ and the edit summary was "my password is password" (the account has been blocked) and the page was reverted by AmiDaniel twice, after the first revert it was deleted by eagle 101, it was an admin messing around... Urdna 01:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

An admin account deleted the Main Page. This is the second time in recent weeks this has occurred. The account may have been compromised and will be desysopped momentarily I'm sure. -- tariqabjotu 01:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything seems to be OK now. Thanks - Sidar 01:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Has the account been desysopped yet? I know it's been blocked... ShadowHalo 01:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it has, [2]. —Centrx→talk • 01:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Phew, okay. I need to figure how IRC works now... ShadowHalo 01:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Although this time it seems likely the admin account was compromised rather then the other time where it was unclear. Hopefully there are no other admins with the password 'password' Nil Einne 07:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a dumb move. Isn't "password" the most commons password? Were it not so creepy, I'd suggest that we require admins have strong passwords. ShadowHalo 08:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could require everyone to have a strong password. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we have any1 check the database for admins or above with password as their password or will we have to do it manually (e.g try hacking every account :P)? Also is there a way to stop people posting their password on their user page?----User:Rock2e ^{Talk - Contribs} 14:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it seems like the password wasn't 'password'. At least assuming the User:Jiang we're speaking to now is the real Jiang. BTW, for those not fllowing the issue on incidents, a password bruteforcer will be run later today on admin accounts Nil Einne 16:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jiang's wasn't; but Andy7's might have been. Doops | talk 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It was. 71.125.65.64 (User:AndyZ) 22:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I wasn't following that well and didn't realise two accounts had already been compromised (now 3). Nil Einne 09:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell put encylopedia my ass on the page??????

Fix it asap.... (I dont know how...) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Armanalp (talk • contribs) 13:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Do you mean the disgusting picture when you click on that story about disused train stations? That really wasn't good for me, I'm at school. Someone please fix it. How did something like that get on the main page? JordanZed 13:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

FUCK, That was NOT good for my eyes. How did they hack the top notification bar?! --Toussaint 13:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to delete it from the newest articles list to see if that would take it out but it didn't work. There's got to be a proper way to report this besides the bottom of the talk page. P.S. Please keep the bad language to a minimum lol JordanZed 13:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It was on the top of "my watchlist" page. Not cool at all. Any prognosis on how quickly this stuff gets resolved? InnocuousFox 13:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I just emailed them about it so it should be fixed quickly, I hope. JordanZed 13:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: Above, members are talking about an admin account with the password "password" so maybe that's how this happened. JordanZed 14:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

See above, and the incident noticeboard for the issues involved. Admins are likely to be the first the notice this type of thing. The picture was in place for around 53 seconds, and the administrator was de-sysopped within minutes. No more ass on your page, sorry for the inconvenience... -- zzuuzz^(talk) 14:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So there's a real article/image there now? Good, it should be interesting. JordanZed 14:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk page deleted, same guy as before?

Someone just deleted the talk page and wrote "MY PASSWORD IS PASSWORD." I don't know if this is the same vandal as before or just a response from some idiot, but we should just keep an eye out. JordanZed 14:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC) My bad, I'll take this to the incident noticeboard.

From what I can tell, the talk page was not deleted. Rather someone removed the content. As the talk page is not protected, nor should it be, there is no way to guard against this other then to revert on sight. Nil Einne 16:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought there are bots who revert every page on page blanks or no? —comment added by DarthRahn(^u/_t\^c) 16:37, 7-May, 2007 year (UTC).

Yes but this was reverted by User:LuigiManiac within 1 minute Nil Einne 16:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

admin just went on rampage

User:Conscious just went on a rampage, deleting everything in sight. Luckily, he got quickly stopped. Just thought I'd break the news: this is the second time recently. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

lol well i noticed that... went to en.wikipedia.org and told me that there was no main page terrible.... why would someone with so many barnstars do that? Allhailthepowerofbauerforjackisback 18:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I just heard on his talk page, aparantly his password was hacked... But how can we be sure, especialy so soon after this? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I suppose desysop means 'remove system operating power' or something like that. It was just a bit freaky to log on to wikipedia and not to have a front page. Thanks... Allhailthepowerofbauerforjackisback 18:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that'd be the third, not second in the past week. Jiang and AndyZ both were compromised. WP:ANI and Wikipedia:Security are trying to figure out what to do, and there's a bot checking admins' passwords so that we can take care of any weak passwords. ShadowHalo 18:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

wow, again deleted. There was 5 deletions on 7 May! How the hell(and why) they did that? —comment added by DarthRahn(^u/_t\^c) 03:17, 8-May, 2007 year (UTC).

well see when i log in to wikipedia at the bottom of the login box it says warning this is unsecured link try logging in on our secure server. something like that. but when you go to link that is 'secure' my computer (windows xp) security pops up and says security certificates have something wrong with them and maybe someone will try to intercept data. anyone else have that problem?

Allhailthepowerofbauerforjackisback 18:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have it. Rather than add a secure server, we should just make logins secure the whole time. That would work, wouldn't it? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's because the SSL certificate authority isn't one of the "big guys" recognized by the browser (such as VeriSign). If you examine the cert, it's good. howcheng {chat} 19:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Marine 69-71 just fell, too. We must act, and fast. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Look guys, its not the end of the world, and as long as we manage to undelete it in a reasonable amount of time (and do it correctly not my botched up work) we are fine. The devs are working on cracking weak passes as we speak. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 19:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Our current problems aren't being cuased by an insecure login system, but by cracking of weak passwords. Martinp23 19:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So, will users with weak passwords be notified? --Kimon^talk 00:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

At the moment at least, they are only checking admin accounts. The passwords of those accounts were reset, so they will either automatically get an e-mail or will need to request an e-mail in the usual way from the log-in system. —Centrx→talk • 00:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank God my password is only 'sirsirbob330' --02:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

How did WP allow admins to have weak passwords - allowing easy access to edit such things as the Main Page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.254.125.78 (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Not any more. --76.64.76.169 20:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Over a year ago, I guess, the devs found that several admin accounts had no password. (Passwords were made mandatory for accounts soon after.) The funny thing is that no accounts had been compromised. O, for those days of innocent yore! - BanyanTree 23:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Little Girl

Not Sure If This Is In The Right Place But Hey, Here Goes, Should An Admin Post Something About The Little Girl Who Has Gone Missing in Portugal. Lukecarpenter169 19:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps You Should Try WP:ITN/C. (Sorry For Mocking You With The Capitalization :) howcheng {chat} 19:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The odds are very good that the story is not a major international affair, so it won't get put on the Main Page (and probably also does not merit an article; people go missing all the time for either inane or unpleasant reasons). —Cuiviénen 21:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, And Should I Try Wikinews? Lukecarpenter169 06:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless the event becomes notable for some reason then yes, Wikinews may be a more likely place for such a story. --Monotonehell 07:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lukecarpenter169 14:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is very big news over in Europe.81.153.133.82 14:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to help update or create a news article on Wikinews in that case? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news service. If the event gains some kind of notability that warrants its own encyclopedia article I'm sure someone will add it. As it stands it's news not a subject of an encyclopedia. :) --Monotonehell 14:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Islamic terrorist plot foiled

I've made an article on this: Islamic terrorism plot at Fort Dix Army base. Please edit/rename the title as necessary. This should be on the main page after its improved, or perhaps its already in the process under a different name. thanks --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Wikinews (n:MainPage), but an encyclopedia. Not every news story gets on MainPage. Please post to Portal: Current events first, expand the article, and then propose a headline at WP:ITN/C. Thanks. --PFHLai 16:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks. I'll do that. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The 2007 Fort Dix attack plot is now on ITN. --PFHLai 09:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

BCE?

King Herods Tomb on the main page has BCE next to it. That is HIGHLY offensive, and I urge you to change it.-Signing is too much work —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.167.139.242 (talk) 20:03, May 8, 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for a wiki encyclopedia that uses BC, I recommend Conservapedia. In the meantime, both BC and BCE are used here. ShadowHalo 20:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just be consistent within any given article. (My 2¢). Freshacconci 20:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the current guideline (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras). Just like there's often no preference for American, British, etc. dialects, there's no preference for BC/AD or BCE/CE. Any given article should use the variant first added to the article and just be consistent within itself. ShadowHalo 20:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Except in articles related to Judaism. There's no Christ, so pls don't use BC/AD in those articles. --76.64.76.169 20:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no Christ? I urge you to think carefully before making statements like that. DoomsDay349 20:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In Judaism. --74.14.23.8 20:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Right on. There's a difference between saying "There's no Christ" and "There's no Christ in Judaism". One could be construed as an insult, the other is simple fact. DoomsDay349 21:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about my poor sentence structures. It should be "Except in articles related to Judaism, where there's no Christ, so pls don't use BC/AD in those articles." Or something like that. Glad that you understand. --74.14.23.8 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's all good. Now perhaps we should stop clogging the page. :D DoomsDay349 21:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Nice chatting with you. Bye-bye. --74.14.23.8 21:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought there is a Christ in Judaism, s/he just hasn't arrived yet and it wasn't Jesus? Nil Einne 06:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. The Messiah is just expected, but not realised yet. In Judaism. --74.13.127.165 09:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

ZOMG. Cambyses II of Persia uses the religious POV "BC" rather than the more neutral BCE formed by academia. That is HIGHLY offensive, and I urge you to change it. Also I found a bunch of articles spelled with some ridiculous European form of English, that should be fixed too! Also Ivory Coast is misnamed Côte d'Ivoire!!! --Gmaxwell 20:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the policies in regards to BCE and CE and BC and AD dating systems is, since they are equivalent, either is acceptable. As a Christian myself I see no problem with it whatsoever, nor should anyone else. They each work the same way; it's a difference of mere letters. I strongly urge you to deal with it. (as far as I know, the same goes for the variant forms of English). DoomsDay349 20:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Herod I, who died in 4 BCE, was supposed to be reigning in Judea during Christ's time on Earth. BC (Before Christ) is probably not applicable. --76.64.76.169 20:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how it's not applicable. BCE is equivalent to BC, CE is equivalent to AD. So really you could do either. DoomsDay349 20:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

They are used the same way, but the words meaning differently. BCE = Before Common Era, no mention of Christ. --76.64.76.169 20:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

They refer to the exact same dates. They are 100% interchangeable. Still not fully understanding what you're trying to say. DoomsDay349 20:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost 100%. Not quite. --76.64.76.169 20:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. There's no instance when you couldn't use either. CE and BCE are nothing more than neutral names for the same dates. 100 BC is 100 BCE, no matter what the context of an article. Same deal. DoomsDay349 20:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The birth year of Jesus was miscalculated when the modern calendar was formulated; it almost certainly happened in the year 4 BC (or possibly in 5 BC), not in 1 AD. Therefore, we have the odd conundrum of Jesus being alive during the tail end of "Before Christ". —Cuiviénen 01:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That's what I was trying to say. --74.13.127.165 09:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

this discussion belongs on Talk:Anno Domini, or if you have a problem with WP's approach to era labels, on Wikipedia talk:Eras. dab (𒁳) 20:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Not especially worth my time anyhow. DoomsDay349 20:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --74.14.23.8 21:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

BCE is not offensive, but absurd. It maintains the birth of Christ as the defining date for BCE/CE, but calls in Common Era and Before Common Era. That is historically accurate. I wish some people would not be so pc as to be concerned about offending someone by using the universally accepted BC/AD versus the historically dubious BCE/CE.- T. Aquinas

This page is for discussing matters relevant to the Main Page. If you have something to say about Wikipedia's use of the term, please go to Wikipedia talk:Eras; otherwise, I recommend a site such as Blogger. ShadowHalo 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, this site is about fact & universal fact alone. Numerous cultures disagree with the presence of Christ & if we go placing BC on dates, it is as insensitive to those cultures as putting that there is no Christ. By putting BCE, scientists have made a neutral viewpoint which allows the fact to be presented, not some religious POV. Regardless of our beliefs, when we come on this site they should all be set aside & only universal fact should be used. Check out the Creationist debates going on at Wikiproject Dinosaurs & the Dinosaur article, as well as numerous other religion-fuelled arguments blazing around the place. Frankly, I'm getting sick & tired of fanatics making their unfounded claims on this site - as per above, take your ideas to Conservipedia. I may be religious, but I do know when to set aside my beliefs in the search of science. Thanks, 203.160.124.17 02:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This debate has also appeared in the Herod article itself. My stance and belief is that whatever system is used, it should not be changed for any reason. If it says BCE, so be it. If it says BC, what difference does it make? Just leave all the dates alone this is a matter of Political correctness by a few individuals who go screaming THIS IS HIGHLY OFFENSIVE. Please, leave Wikipedia free from both Political correctness and religious extremist values, because we don't have space for this shit. Thats how strongly I feel about a few who capitalize OFFENSIVE to get their minority point across. Stop it now and look for some better edits to be made. If it says BC then the author of the article thought it was appropriate for that and if it say BCE then we must respect their wishes too.Tourskin 05:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that the BC/BCE debate has much to do with "religious extremists" - it's a long leap from a Christian wanting the removal of "E" in BCE to suicide bombers who have been coined by the media as religious extremists. I think you're overreacting a bit in that regard. No need to swear either though; it just shows you're at a lack for better words & gets any reasonable argument nowhere. 203.160.124.17 09:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You have a worse argument still; that suicide bombers are the only extremists. Well its fundamentalist to say "ITS HIGHLY OFFENSIVCE" over an extra letter instead of just BC. I am a devout Catholic. But this is taking religion to the extreme by saying that BCE is highly offensive. I mean, come one people, God did not tell men when to set the date, it was calculated (incorrectly) by a monk ages ago, but after the death of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, I neither support nor do I object to either system, I simply believe that its wrong for a few to claim its offensive and capitalizing it. 160.227.129.254 19:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Adolph Hitler moved to HITLAH!

Can someone please undo the move? --Kimon^talk 01:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It was quickly(!) reverted withing 10+ minutes.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! So, how does one revert a move? The original page still exists and this prevents the move of the new page to go through. --Kimon^talk 01:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving a page automatically creates a redirect from the former name. If there is no edit history to this redirect page besides its creation, any user can move the page back to the old name (even though it's not red). On the other hand, if there's any further history, it takes an admin to fix it. Doops | talk 01:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, there was history because the first thing I did was try moving it back and it failed. --Kimon^talk 02:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. An administrator has to do it. That article was in fact protected against moves until it was unprotected a couple of months back, for reasons I'm not entirely sure of. Articles that are visible enough to be permanently semi-protected should generaly be (fully) move-protected too – Gurch 02:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Which brings me to my next question. When trying to figure out how to get an admin's attention I got stumped. I was looking at the various administrative noticeboards but, none of them are for "getting an admin's attention to deal with something as soon as possible but, has nothing to do with dealing with other users". So, I figured that there must be a list somewhere of all the admins that are currently online, and then I can leave a message on their talk page. Nope, no such thing exists. My last thought was to post here and hope that someone would notice.
So, my question is: How do I get an admin's attention when it's not to report another user? --Kimon^talk 14:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• WP:AN (admin noticeboard) works. Wickethewok 15:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Now I'll know for next time. --Kimon^talk 16:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

history

you need to have more stuff about the history of the american revolutionary war and about the americans divided cause i am doing report and cant find enough stuff about them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.12.214.203 (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

• American Revolutionary War
• American Revolution
• Timeline of United States revolutionary history (1760-1789)

Should start you off – Gurch 02:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

But of course, bear in mind that the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a research source. I mean, as far as encyclopedias go we're awesome; but a serious history paper should be consulting real sources, not just enyclopedias. Doops | talk 14:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming one is near such an establishment, I find that libraries have books in them. They make great sources for assignments and reports. Much better than an unreliable mish-mash of ideas. ;) --Monotonehell 02:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I could not agree more that Wikipedia should not be exploited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bywep (talk • contribs) 18:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Why do you think that such use of the wiki counts as exploitation? ffm ✎talk 19:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Bywep probably meant 'mis-used'. --74.14.23.88 19:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Laughable hyperbole on the main page

Someone needs to fix where it says "perpetrate a massacre" in the News section. This kind of language is not encyclopedic. Also the front page needs to be unprotected or I need my privileges modified so I can make needed edits. Furthermore Wikipedia should not log me out while I'm trying to edit things. --Afed 16:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

1)Please post at the top section of this page. 2)Why? 3)Please file a detailed report of the issue you are having here. ffm ✎talk 16:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You've been trolled. Check out the guy's user page. An obvious trouble-maker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.90.96.17 (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Mistake in 'on this day'

'1671 - Thomas Blood (pictured) was caught trying to steal the British Crown Jewels from the Tower of London.'

In 1671 there was no such thing as 'the British Crown Jewels' - Great Britain did not exist as a country until the Acts of Union in 1707. Reading the first paragraph of the article would have been enough for whoever wrote today's OTD to notice that it was in fact the English crown jewels that were stolen. England != Great Britain, see British Isles (terminology). Cynical 19:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I've updated May 9 so it should be fixed for next year. To draw the attention of an administrator so as to get it fixed for this year (i.e. today), please post your request in the "error reports" at the top of this page. Cheers, Doops | talk 19:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Now fixed on MainPage, too. Thanks for pointing this out. Next time, please report errors at WP:ERRORS. Response is usually quicker there 'coz WP:ERRORS is on many admins' watchlist. Thanks. --PFHLai 21:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Dianetics

Is the launch of Dianetics really worthy of a reference in on this day? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kupos (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Valid point, "corrupt sinister and dangerous" is the view of Justice Latey on the lot of them. Don't see why we should be promoting their crap. SFC9394 20:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, brother. We're not promoting them by putting it on the Main Page any more than we promote Nazism by having Hitler on the Main Page. Find something else on May 9 and suggest it. —Cuiviénen 20:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether it's a cult or not, it's part of history. Freshacconci 20:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, congrats on failing Godwin's Law! Secondly the negative connotations of the parallel you draw is known by all - the negatives of this bunch of Shysters is, unfortunately not all that well known. SFC9394 20:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It still doesn't mean that it's not a signicant part of history. A group that has thousands of followers (millions? I have no idea), and a real influence on culture (and I'd agree it's a negative influence for the most part), is still worthy of a mention in important historical dates. Freshacconci 20:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Godwin's Law usually refers to instances in which online posters compare people (or their actions) with Hitler/Nazis (or their actions). Cuivienen did nothing of the sort.

2. Do you realize that we just had a Scientologist complaining about an "improper" main page item 2 ½ days ago? Why do people believe that the mere mention of a controversial viewpoint constitutes an endorsement thereof? —David Levy 21:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Our own article seems to say otherwise, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Not a mention of people or their actions - simply using comparisons (in this case comparing a DYK entry involving the subject) is valid.

2. That's up to them. Just because they have a problem with something doesn't automatically make any concern anyone else has invalid. SFC9394 21:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

1. This isn't the usual context in which Godwin's Law is cited. To again quote our article, "it applies to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis." Cuivienen's comparison involved Hitler-related main page items, not Hitler himself.

2. In my opinion, both of you have allowed your personal biases to cloud your perceptions of NPOV main page content. —David Levy 21:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

1. "comparison involved Hitler-related main page items, not Hitler himself." The definition of splitting a hair?

2. "In my opinion" Indeed - and we are all entitled to them. SFC9394 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

1. No. You're attempting to cite Godwin's Law on a technicality. This isn't a game in which the words "Hitler" and "Nazi"—irrespective of context—trigger bells and whistles. It's a claim that a discussion participant has drawn a cheap, ill-advised comparison between Hitler/Nazis and someone/something else (arguably trivializing the Holocaust in the process). Cuivienen did nothing remotely resembling this.

2. I never claimed otherwise. I'm merely expressing my opinion. —David Levy 22:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[outdent] SFC9394, you're of course entitled to you're opinion, but complaining that we mention Scientology on the Main Page isn't going to do anything since our NPOV policy states that we should be taking all events into a historical context, regardless of what religion it's about. If you think that anything uncritical of Scientology should be kept from the Main Page, I suggest you begin a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, though I can't say you're likely to get much support. ShadowHalo 23:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There can't be many entities that have made a greater contribution to exposing Scientology for what it is than Wikipedia. Ideally everyone should read about Scientology on Wikipedia, so that they will know that they should tell them to get lost if they are ever subjected to a recruitment effort. Wilchett 20:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Shameless Flattery

Just a quick note to say I've really enjoyed the wide selection of featured articles this week, from a medieval pogrom to the red planet, to a Marshal of the Soviet Union to an iconic piece of art. Great stuff and a big thanks to all those involved in working such a diverse array up to featured standard and Raul for selecting them. Lisiate 00:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh quit your complaini... no wait.. what was that again? ;) Everyone here does a great job, I agree. --Monotonehell 02:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) Raul654 04:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What no computer games, minor celebrities, singles, or cricketer biographies? Pshaw! :) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Be careful not to look at tomorrow's featured article. You might get a heart attack. —Cuiviénen 12:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A pity we didn't have any biology related article this week. Perhaps someone should work on cardiac arrestmyocardial infarction (sorry got wrong article)? It's already been nominated once so probably not that much more work... Nil Einne 15:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it a single about a computer game performed by a minor cricket-playing celebrity? I wanna read that article. ShadowHalo 19:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Worse. It's Eurovision Song Contest. —Cuiviénen 20:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, it's too bad we don't have any Eurovision DYK nominations in the queue. We could've had an all-Eurovision Main Page. howcheng {chat} 03:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Eurovision is on this week, I agree let's have every single item on Main Page relate to it! --Monotonehell 03:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Early season

Why not say exactly how early? Wareq 06:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Like now. --74.14.17.68 16:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If you mean by how many weeks, it says on the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season page. -- Chris as I am Chris 17:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

When he was born

He was born 1642 and died 1727. He was born in a manor house and died in London. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.218.117 (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Um, what the heck are you talking about? If you have a recommendation/info for a specific article, you should post on that article's talk page instead Nil Einne 15:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're talking about Isaac Newton?--User:Rock2e ^{Talk - Contribs} 20:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or...

Is it just me or are nearly all of the links on the Main Page red, so that it looks like the article linked isn't there? Yet when I do click on a link, the actual article is still there. A formating mistake or something? 91.125.15.227

For me also--Dcooper 15:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone is seeing them in this manner. --LuigiManiac 15:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Redlinks that aren't Nil Einne 15:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your right there I am using Mozilla. Why? AxG ҈ ^►talk 15:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Redlinks_that_aren.27t --Cadby ^(talk) 15:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't realize someone'd already posted the correct link... --Cadby ^(talk) 15:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiContact

Could we add WikiContact (http://www.wikicontact.org) to the list of sister projects of Wikipedia? It seems relevant and useful.