Wikipedia talk:About

Editing by new and anonymous editors has been disabled on this page. Comments by those editors can be left on a sub-page by following the link below: Click here to go to the sub-page for new and anonymous users

Simple.

Simple thing about Wikipedia.

It is a great wiki/site. Its a wiki/site where people can share their knowledge with other people.

Credits

I've added a brief paragraph on credits. The CC-BY license requires that we give attribution, and while Wikipedians know that this is done by looking at the page history, for text, and clicking on an image, I could find no place where this is made clear to the casual user. --agr (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Not Wikileaks

Should we add a section to the About page to indicate no affiliation with Wikileaks? We have received many questions about this on OTRS.  7  04:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a selfref note on WikiLeaks. I think that's more than sufficient. Mentioning them here would give them way too much importance and credit. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

content of cookies

Now that Wikimedia uses cookies, and since the Wall Street Journal months ago tested some leading websites for privacy issues and found that Wikipedia was not using cookies, we probably should explain what our cookies do, so that it's clear what they don't do, such as (I assume) remembering a reader's search for cancer treatments, information that affects privacy if third parties can buy the information from firms who read the cookies without Wikimedeia's or the reader's consent or knowing cooperation. We already discuss a little of this. Would someone who knows the subject of what Wikimedia stores on cookies please edit this section? Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC) (Corrected by adding the subject/title to this section, intended as new: 04:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

Hey about the 3 British soldier were killed by a US Jet fight planes in August 23, 2007?

The reason i tried to take it out on the "list of post-1945 of British victims by the United States military" is because i don't want people to think it's a US-on-UK friendly fire. It was clearly a Brit-on-Brit Friendly Fire. It was well-documented that the British Foward Air-Controller will face Manslaughter charges so the US was not to blame for this. I mean some one look it it and just blame on the US. Especially when Brits(even today) are very quick to blame this on the US despite the fact it was proven it was the fault of the British FAC giving the bad coordinates to the US pilot. That's why i'm trying to take it out many times and yet someone still post it in there. I do not want people(mostly foreigners) to continue to believe it was the Americans fault for this. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1038781/British-soldier-faces-manslaughter-charges-Afghanistan-friendly-deaths.html

if u get my message thank u. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulioetc (talk • contribs) 09:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ten Simple Rules

I came across Ten Simple Links for Editing Wikipedia while reviewing library resource collections, and thought it might be worth adding to External links, alongside The Missing Manual. I don't want to add it myself, as I do't know if it's already been discussed, is unknown, or is in any conflict with any guidelines. So here it is. If you want to add it, fine. If not, also fine. Flatterworld (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Notation

The use of NPOV and Consensus to arrive at the contents of an article can lead to the problem of leading to the inability of any discussion of less agreed on alternative such as was often the subject of discussion in the earlier editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and other scientific publications. This makes for a unbalance in the tone of discussion of the topic.WFPM (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

For instance, I can detect a considerable bias within Wilipedia against the Janet Periodic table, which only recently has been imported from Europe, and which has a considerably less degree of coverage as to its potential utility, both in Chemistry and in Physics considerations. And I find it hard to make any headway against the predominant preference of the editors in favor of the standard Periodic table. And maybe this is all for the best, And I hope so.WFPM (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC) See Charles Janet.WFPM (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A little help anyone?

I'm new to wikipedia. And it's confusing me :-( I'm creating a band-page, for a Denmark based Metal band.

everytime i log in, it keeps saying that the page is about to be deleted, or might be?

There and external reffrance in a link from some other user.

The band page is:

Pilgrimz (Band)

How does it get offecially? -so when you search in the searchbar the name will pop up?

Please help! ANYONE!

H. Jess.

Heeeelp!

A little help anyone?

I'm new to wikipedia. And it's confusing me :-( I'm creating a band-page, for a Denmark based Metal band.

everytime i log in, it keeps saying that the page is about to be deleted, or might be?

There and external reffrance in a link from some other user.

The band page is:

Pilgrimz (Band)

How does it get offecially? -so when you search in the searchbar the name will pop up?

Please help! ANYONE!

H. Jess.

Heeeelp! Pilgrimz (Band)

A little help anyone?

I'm new to wikipedia. And it's confusing me :-( I'm creating a band-page, for a Denmark based Metal band.

everytime i log in, it keeps saying that the page is about to be deleted, or might be?

There and external reffrance in a link from some other user.

The band page is:

Pilgrimz (Band)

How does it get offecially? -so when you search in the searchbar the name will pop up?

Please help! ANYONE!

H. Jess.