Talk:Main Page/Archive 86

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 86


Contents

Languages of Wikipedia

I'm used to use only the english Wikipedia, although my native tongue is finnish. I think it's best to participate to the most active Wikipedia in order to gain the most synergia through diversity and confrontation. We should build our native Wikipedia as a translation, not as an original version. But I've discovered a boundary, namely that history articles seem to be written only in the native language, and it seems appropriate to do so rather than to leave it for other nationalities. It would be negligence towards one's own cultural identity and linguistic distictiveness to write the history of his own culture in a foreign language. English is probably the most wide-spread language in the world. This can be measured by defining the areas of the world where some fixed percentage of people who know english. Thus I ask, should we write our own history in our own language, or write it first in english, while having a comfort of the idea that it's going to be translated? Teemu Ruskeepää 11:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that posting the question here will introduce a major bias to the answers you receive. Editors of the English-language Wikipedia are more likely to encourage you to edit the English-language version, just as editors on the Finnish Wikipedia would encourage you to post there. Ultimately it's up to you which you contribute to, there are pros and cons for both choices. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 12:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, this is probably not the best place to start such a discussion. Try Wikipedia:Village pump or possibly somewhere up in the meta. But I think that since you have a grasp of both Finnish and English that you should contribute to both language versions of "your history". Once in Finnish and once in English. The only neglegence would be denying one or the other language groups the knowledge. --Monotonehell 13:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Do it in Finnish. It's the right thing to do, besides, Finnlanders are probably more interested in Finnish history anyways.Cameron Nedland 23:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know about this policy for Finnish Wikipedia. Personally, I'd like to see more foreign language article translated into English. Please write in Finnish (or Swedish) and then translate to English. It makes sense, as there will be more people with knowledge on the subject who are willing to contribute only in Finnish. Often I see very poor articles on English wikipedia, and when I check to see if more is written in another language I find the same poor article has been translated (I don't read any other languages, but it's obvious). As an English speaker, I'd much rather see more foreign language article translated into English, instead of the other way around. And now that I've said my two cents, yes, Wikipedia:Village pump is probably a better place for this. —Pengo talk · contribs 02:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Excuse my language, but the English wikipedia is fucking enormous, let some of the other wikipedias get some articles. None of the others come close, next largest is German and we have THREE TIMES AS MANY ARTICLES.Cameron Nedland 05:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, all of us just need to work on the English wikipedia, and then we can work on translating English wikipedia articles to the other Wikipedias. --Ineffable3000 22:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


I think the best thing to do is to write the article in your native language first, especially if it is a subject on the history, culture, arts or literature of your country. Why? Because there are more people – not all of whom speak English – who are knowledgeable about the topic or who have ready access to primary sources available only in your mother tongue who can make contributions of valuable information, thereby preserving it until someone can translate it and add it to the English article. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia languages

German wikipedia has more than 500,000 articles. 84.191.255.250 21:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It's a waste of space to put it in it's own category though. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-12-20 21:42Z
    • Which is why the current "Wikipedia languages" section will remain unchanged for a long time, IMO. --Howard the Duck 23:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Until German Wiki reaches a million. GizzaChat © 00:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
        • By then the other Wikis will catch up :p --Howard the Duck 01:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Finnish will be moving on up to 100k in a few months. Also, there are quite a lot of Wikipedias currently bottlenecked right below 20k. If we get too many 20k Wikipedias, we may reorganize to 250k, 50k and 20k. —Cuiviénen 02:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
With the 20ks all bottled up, the admins will come up with a new threshold - like 30k - which likely lead to the same languages displayed. --Howard the Duck 04:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The English Wikipedia still dominates, so what's your point? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
They are conversing about the language categories that appear on the main page, which is definitely an issue if it gets too crowded. It doesn't matter which specific language is more popular -- thats not even the topic of discussion. falsedef 03:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Haven't we had this discussion 3 or 4 times already over the past month? Nil Einne 12:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but those darn foreigners keep writing more articles! If the article counts didn't change we wouldn't have to keep reconsidering how to list them :) – Gurch 14:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
But my point was that this isn't a new discussion. The German language wiki has been 500k for quite a while and people keep mentioning this and asking the same question. Sometimes it's the French one as well. But it's not a new milestone, just a rehash of the old one Nil Einne 10:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Get ready for tomorrow

Vandalism is going to go sky high when this is featured.--Donald Goldberg 09:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh god, another Pokemon FA. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 11:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought they wouldn't do it again, hehe.--cloviz 15:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
So I herd u liek torchicz... Pacific Coast Highway {Ho! Ho! Ho! • My Presents!} 01:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to bring all Pokemon-related articles to FA. Then we can have a year of Pokemon FA's on the Main Page. It would become the PokeWiki. Nishkid64 02:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I think one exists already. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Search Bar

I think that Wikipedia should have a search bar. I think that it would be helpful and I know that I would use it. I know this is random, but they should. Just a plain old search bar, like the one Google has except for Wikipedia--Douglas Bradford Oliver 18:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We already do. Its on the navigation bar on the left. FellowWikipedian 20:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I think he means a search bar for the web browser.--cloviz 21:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Firefox has one for Wikipedia. --Maxamegalon2000 23:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
There is an OpenSearch plugin which anyone with a capable web browser (Firefox 2 and IE7) can auto-detect and install. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 02:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone should make one. It is not difficult to program one for IE or Mozilla. --Ineffable3000 22:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Er read again, he said, "there is". In any case, I believe both FireFox and IE7 will be able to add them wikipedia directly via their respective add search engines pages Nil Einne 17:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Torchic!

Torchic vandalism

Would someone please lock the page now? Billbrock 02:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Done by an admin, Wknight94. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you! Billbrock 02:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Shouldn't last too long though since it's main page featured. But I agree that was a little out of control. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Another porn picture has been loaded over the article. If the article can't be locked down, then perhaps the main page link to it should be broken for the time being. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
That was to a template that was used in the article. It should be ok now, as I just went through every template and they're all protected now (including the one used in that vandalism). --Rory096 03:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I had almost invited my second-grade son, who loves these games, to come read the article. Glad I checked first, because that stuff was really sick. If you can discover the culprit, I believe the Feds would be willing to go after them as this breaks several federal laws. Askari Mark (Talk)
It's idiotic, yes, but I doubt that even if the person who did it was found out that he/she could actually be prosectuted. They couldn't get him for exposing a minor to indecent material or whatever because the troll didn't actually have any way of knowing that minors would view the page.--Azer Red Si? 21:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not remember anyone be prosecuted for anything analagous. --Ineffable3000 22:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

First Bulbasaur, now this...?

Why do we need another Pokemon on the main page? Could someone tell me how these get featured? They are fictional cartoon creatures and yet they are on the main page? Jeez, wikipedia, how can you sink this low? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caffolote (talk • contribs) 03:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

This is the guy you want to talk to: User talk:Raul654. He is the one who chooses which article gets to be featured on the main page. Andrew Levine 04:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Why him? Why not, I dunno, use Consensus? Just H 02:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
And who's blobosaur? Just H 04:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Featured articles are chosen based on quality, not topic. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 04:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
In response to both this and the below, featured articles are the best articles on Wikipedia. If that happens to be on a Pokemon, well, live with it. It's a good article, so it deserves its spot here. DoomsDay349 04:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly encyclopedic material. Then again there's the Pokedex(I can't belive I remember that now).--The jazz musician 04:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Now we know your big secret, hehehe.--cloviz 05:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly encyclopedic material? What pray tell is your definition of encyclopedic material? DoomsDay349 04:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Somehow, I doubt that we'd be having this discussion if the "fictional cartoon creature" depicted were Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse. —David Levy 04:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Well of course, since they are very well-known, but I doubt that any one except poke-nerds (no offense intended) has even heard of "Torchic". This isn't poke-wiki. Featured articles should be ones that a fairly wide range of people can relate to.--Azer Red Si? 04:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Then I suggest that you formally propose changes to the selection criteria. As it stands, Torchic qualifies (as does any topic notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia). At issue is the article's quality, not the its demographics. —David Levy 05:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, even topics that aren't notable enough for inclusion could be FAs. FAs are judged solely on content, not on the topic. Technically, an article could be both on the main page as an FA and on AfD at the same time (and the AfD could even be in good faith)! --Rory096 05:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Getting FA status is one thing, and yes, all articles are worthy of it, but being on the main page is another.--Azer Red Si? 05:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Does a page exist where we can work toward buliding consensus on a set of standards for main page material? Djbaniel 04:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm surprised people are still complaining about main page topics. I rarely act frank and rude, but everyone, deal with it, act mature, and move on; it's today's featured article. It IS a featured article, and most people have no real issue with its inclusion on the main page. Period. — Deckiller 05:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Azer Red. It's just something obscure. Notable cartoon characters that are well written should deserve a spot. --The jazz musician 05:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

So, you think Pokemon is not a "notable cartoon"?--Eternal Imortal 16:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Pokemon as it is, is very famous cartoon. Torchic is not IMHO. And it is totally irrelevant atleast. I suggest a policy change in this matter, so that only relevant or interesting articles are chosen for front page.-- Anupamsr|talk|contribs 21:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you guys are missing the point. The point is not that Torchic is a fictional pokemon and also the featured article of the day. The point is that it is the featured article shortly after Bulbasaur. I understand that Torchic warrants inclusion on the main page, but couldn't it do so next year, when Bulbasaur is not so fresh in everyone's minds? People will think Wikipedia is concerned with topics that are wholly trivial.--Oreo Priest 16:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Both The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask and Final Fantasy X were main page articles this year, and in a relatively short distance between them (probably less than between Bulbasaur and Torchic), and you see no problem with that? Seriously, if you want to complain about featured articles, go bug Raul (it was his plan to put Torchic on the main page this month, with Bulbasaur in mind).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
It's been 5 months since Bulbasaur. That's about 150 FAs apart; plenty of distance. Generally, the rule is only that similar topics don't go upon within a week or two of each other. —Cuiviénen 00:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
But next year we have to make room for Pikachu and Charizard. Dragons flight 00:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I wonder, why is it so bad about a Pokémon being on "Today's Featured Article"? I don't see a difference, just because it's fictitious and because it's a cartoon. It doesn't matter if it's a cartoon, the point is that it's featured, in my opinion. I mean, today's Article is a plant. --Tohru Honda13Sign here! 01:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess it's true that Torchic isn't the first obscure article to be featured on the main page, and not much concern has been shown about articles on obscure subjects being featured until Torchic. Maybe some of us (myself included) are being a little poke-prejudiced. Featuring articles on obscure subjects is something that I can see people being legitimately concerned about, but if we are going to be so, then that concern shouldn't only be in effect when Pokemon articles are featured.--Azer Red Si? 21:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Pokemon were decided to be notable according to WP:N, so if they are very good articles, let them be featured. --Ineffable3000 22:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

POKEMAN

...WHY? Akloki 04:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Akloki

It's obvious. Fnord.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
It really is.--Eternal Imortal 16:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Torchic?

Why is an article about a type of Pokemon on the main page? The day's featured article should be something that a fairly wide range of people are familiar with, not something obscure that only a very specific group can relate to.--Azer Red Si? 04:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I just said something about this on the Torchic talk page. That is not a requirement. A featured article is a good article, one of Wikipedia's best, and is recognized as such. Something that people can relate to is not a prerequisite. Now, please, people, to everyone talking about this, ask yourself this question; don't you think the world has bigger problems than Wikipedia putting Torchic up as a featured article? "Oh yes, there's a war in Iraq, several terrorist nations have nuclear weapons, globing warming is on the rise, but did you hear? Wikipedia put Torchic up as a featured article! Let's devote all our time and resources to complaining about it." DoomsDay349 05:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Especially since every true academic mind I've met in real life is actually impressed that Wikipedia can feature such a wide range of topics, and presents the material on the main page in a balanced manner. This is a source for general information, and this article doesn't go into excessive detail. I wish people's arguements wouldn't be bended to appear more mature than they actually are just by criticizing topics with a fictional foundation. — Deckiller 05:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to say Thank God that tomorrow's FA is about a shrub. Nothing controversial about that. Though you never know...*gulp*. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DoomsDay349 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
Lots of shrubcruft. Cue the complaints. — Deckiller 05:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I used to believe, from my own experience editing them, that the botany articles were the quietest, most easy going place to edit on Wikipedia. My belief was SHATTERED when, one day, I found a vicious edit war on a botany article (sorry, I cannot remember which one). Raul654 05:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually Banksia brownii sparked a very silly heated debate involving respected community members when it was nominated at WP:GA over WP:WIAGA criteria. There more pokemon FA than plant FA and half of the plant FA are two Banksia Gnangarra 05:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not against fictional material being on the main page, but I think that it should be such that a wide range of people could reasonably identify with it (e.g. Mickey Mouse), not something that only people deeply interested with a certain series would know anything about.--Azer Red Si? 05:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I doubt very many people know about the Kengir uprising. Does that mean it shouldn't have appeared on the main page? --Rory096 05:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the point of an encyclopedia is not to learn about that which you already know, but to discover the unknown. DoomsDay349 05:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

hm, the only 'objection' that could be raised is there was another pokemon article some weeks ago. --87.194.72.129 05:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That was in July, not exactly recent. --Rory096 05:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
yeah, i mean, some could still say even in a year two pokemon articles are too much. i personally don't mind. --87.194.72.129 17:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Azer, I have come across tonnes of TFAs which 1) don't interest me, and 2) I don't identify with. This is one of them, and I have no problem with it being here. There is probably more interest, sadly, in this article than there is in the Green and Golden Bell Frog article, which was on the page earlier this month. And guess what? Not a single comment on this talk page. So, please tell me, what is your real problem with this being TFA, because your current argument doesn't stand up if you look at the archive. Oh, and people of many generations do not identify with Mickey Mouse, including mine. It is a very old character, which has not been popular for an extremely long time. There are millions of Pokemon fans out there, you'll have to live with it. --liquidGhoul 14:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The quick response to objections of this kind is: See Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#I think that today's featured article is awful. What can be done about it? - BanyanTree 15:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You don't need to like Pokemon but you heard of them and so has everybody else.--Eternal Imortal 16:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
What is this awful shrub on the main page? I've never heard of it! How can Wikipedia have degenerated to featuring stupid, boring plants on the main page? I demand a recount! --Zeality 00:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

English Language Page

What happened to the article on the English Language?It's now a red link or was yesterday at least.I asked this before but some people were confused by what i meant? Dermo69 13:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

An administrator was removing a revision from the page history, which has to be done when someone posts personal information or violates copyright – Gurch 23:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a bit more detail at Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why is an article that is prominently linked from the Main Page missing? - BanyanTree 15:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

WHAT?!

BANSKIA BROWNII?!!?! What is wikipedia doing having such an IMMATURE article being featured!!?!?!??!!?!?!?!?!!?!? I CAN'T BELIEVE IT! WHY!!!????????????

Jesus Christ not again. DoomsDay349 06:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to award a barnstar if, before the year is out, someone comes up with an original joke about the choice of the day's featured article; one that makes me laugh and hasn't been done four billion and six times before. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Attractive...

...is a point of view. I, for one, threw up when I saw that plant. --JohnO 04:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

correct its a point of view, its also supported by citation within the article body specifically in the cultivation section with reference #3. Gnangarra 08:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Certainly, it does attract many birds and insects, as it is "a heavy producer of nectar". —Centrx→talk • 09:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

what are those red numbers in recent changes

question--12.72.32.40 04:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering the same thing, also what do the green numbers in brackets mean? This is also showing up in my watchlist. Suicup 06:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is the size of the change in the number of characters (green = characters added; red = removed) Bwithh 06:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, then, by god, that should be explained. We have to keep our software user-friendly and clear at all times. By the way, who thought this additional bit of information was important enough to clutter up user watchlist pages as well? Badagnani 06:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
It's the number of bytes. This change was introduced over the last few days, so it probably is going to be updated soon. (Although the "user friendly and clear" kind of contradicts Bug 1...) As for who introduced it in watchlists, bug Leon.[1] Titoxd(?!?) 06:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there going to be some sort of anouncement somewhere that tells us what they are? Because really that's going to confuse a lot of people. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 06:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
It only takes an administrator with a bit of sense to add an explanation to MediaWiki:Recentchangestext; lo and behold, that's what has been done, except they only linked to the village pump; since discussions there are temporary someone's going to have to make a more permanent explanation at some point – Gurch 11:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Difference bewteen oversight and admin

i dont really see any difference bewteen the 2. both can hide revision. so what's the real difference. 07:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Block of sugars

Revisions deleted by admins can be seen via Special:Undelete, those by oversight users cannot. Titoxd(?!?) 07:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
In other words, revisions can be in one of three places; in the page history, in the deleted page history, or gone completely (still in the database, but only developers can see them). Revisions in the page history can be seen by everyone. The deleted page history is where all the edits to a page go when the page is deleted, and only administrators can see it; since any administrator can delete or restore a page, any administrator can move edits in or out of the deleted history, but they have to delete the page in order to do so. Oversight allows you to take edits directly out of the page history without deleting the page first, and once this has been done the edits are inaccessible even to users with oversight (in other words, unlike most actions on a wiki the action is irreversible without the intervention of a developer, which is why only a few trusted users have the ability to oversight revisions) – Gurch 11:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Coloured numbers on watchlist

I'm still not sure i totally understand this, even after reading the "What do the coloured numbers mean?" link.

Am i asking in the wrong place?

If not, can someone please clarify further?

It is something to do with bugs and bites.

Simply south 12:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It's how much text has been added or removed to the page by the last edit. The number is in bytes, which is a small unit of measurement for computer... stuff. Your post, for example, was 339 bytes. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so i am going to guess that the green numbers indicate the number of bytes added and the red numbers are the number of bytes removed
Is that right?
Also, what have bugs got to do with this? Simply south 13:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Although my watchlist displays all the numbers in black, with plus and minus signs.
As for bugs, news about new features, and requests for them, are generally found at the same place for reports of bugs (i.e. errors in Wikipedia's software) and bug fixes - that is http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay so the bugs parts are just a reminder then to report if anything goes wrong, or something like that? Simply south 13:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes - and to show where the original feature request was (which is referred to as 'bug 8331', even though it's not technically a bug that we didn't have this before). --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Err okay. Thanks. Simply south 13:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Colored numbers in Watchlist. --PFHLai 14:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
He already read that before asking here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I posted the link for other people who may have the same question, hoping that this discussion would continue over there. --PFHLai 04:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I like it because it helps me see whether edits are actually 'minor'. --Ineffable3000 22:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

What was that? Who put up the penis picture, and why has all the talk about it been removed? J Milburn 15:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, why has it been deleted from the history? Have I just slipped into some kind of Nazi 'The vandalism never happened.' Conspiracy? J Milburn 15:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Some admin who can delete individual versions must have done it. I hope they found how it was done and prevented it, because I found nothing. The templates on the curent version were not vandalized.--HereToHelp 15:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Well, let's go on Wikipedia and find out about that... Oh my god." Something needs to be done quickly. --71.252.244.148 15:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that Wikipedia:POTD_row/December_24,_2006 was vadlaised since it was just protected a few minutes ago. I have no idea why the admin would have deleted the revision. Why not keep it since the image is already deleted anyways? Jeltz talk 15:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Correction, the vandalism but not the images are still there in the history. I just missed it. Jeltz talk 15:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The vandalism was of the whole page. EVERYTHING was covered by a huge image of a penis. J Milburn 15:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but that can be done through nice CSS tricks. Not sure if that was the case this time though. Jeltz talk 15:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This is the second time I have personally seen this happen... vandalization like this cause Wikipedia to lose credit, and it is already viewed lowly by many people. This is exactly the sort of thing that causes more problems for the community. It bothers me that the Main Page is not safeguarded against such attacks. --Ihmhi 15:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
It was on there for long enough that I have to wonder how many people actually saw it, too. If anything could fuel the "imagine if a child saw this!!!!" issue, this is certainly it, vadalism or not. I think they take away the history (as opposed to simply reverting it) in extreme cases like this...but still...it seems weird that they are deleting the comments about it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 15:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe the history of the discussion was also removed. I suspect that was by the same rogue admin who vandalised the main page. Who was it? Anyone gonna tell? J Milburn 15:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
This history was not removed. -- tariqabjotu 16:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This is very strange. I could find no evidence of any penis images being uploaded recently. --Ixfd64 15:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This image was not uploaded to Wikipedia. -- tariqabjotu 16:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Aren't POTDs protected? It would sense that if the main page is protected, then so must be everything else displayed on the main page. The picture was up there for at least 10 minutes, and when you have such a busy site, the numbers must be in the thousands.... Cacofonie 15:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
It should have been protected before it went onto the Main Page. Obviously, it was overlooked. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
As I said, to me it looked like the whole page had been covered by the picture, it wsasn't just the POTD that was changed. And yes, as it was protected, it must have been an admin who did this. J Milburn 16:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it was the same guy that left his seasons greetings on my talk page yesterday... he uploaded the image, insisted it was suitable for the body modification article, and afterwards insisted the image is perfectly okay. The image appeared on WP:AFC (where I noticed it and proceeded to take action) yesterday via divs added to the page source in the same fashion - over everything. --Ouro 15:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope, the page was protected after the vandalism, though it should have been protected before it went onto the Main Page. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps this discussion would be better suited to a more appropriate environment for the topic, such as the Vandalism article's discussion page? --Ihmhi 15:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    Here is fine. Wikipedia talk:Vandalism is generally not the right place to talk about specific incidents of vandalism. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

OK everyone it was not an admin. The POTD template mentioned above was unlocked, and some vandal added in the picture, which caused it to be on the main page. It has now been locked, as have the ones for the rest of the year. The vandal has been blocked indefinitely. The history hasn't been deleted, if you check the template history. --Majorly (Talk) 16:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Lock Main Page from Edit?

That was a sick image uploaded by some sick individual. Whoever viewed that would be scarred for years, if not for life. Can we urge Wikipedia to lock the main page everyday and not allow any major changes to it unless it's by an administrator or a tested wikipedia writer? -Eendrani 15:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Already, only admins can edit. J Milburn 16:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the problem was fixed fairly quickly, at least. This was obviously done by a registered user, and I'm sure somebody is already on their way to finding out who that is. Props to whoever it was on damage control on Christmas Eve...--SeanQuixote | talk | my contribs 16:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Yup, the problem is that the main page includes other pages and sometimes people forget to protect those. Maybe a bot should protect the Featured Image template. The user was Panpel who is already banned by now. Jeltz talk 16:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the history of Wikipedia:POTD row/December 24, 2006, the images in question were WikiHell.jpg, WikiReal.jpg, Wikipef (note that only images with certain extensions can be uploaded), Wikipain.jpg, and Wikicolor.jpg. However, I could find no evidence that any of these images ever existed. Am I missing something? --Ixfd64 16:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

They were in wikimedia commons. --Majorly (Talk) 16:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing it up. --Ixfd64 04:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Mutated Penis? Deleted?

  • No doubt I'm putting this in the wrong place and in the wrong format. However, I'll still make a go of it until you delete me in a few min.

I would like to know who decides what is obscene on Wikipedia. I found the articles to be more informative the many "Encyclopedia" websites due to the fact that they appear to be uncensored and written without regards to Political Correctness. I also see it mentioned that some bad pics have been posted. I cannot tell if this was due to vandalism or due to so religious crazy being offened. And one last point. Don't write .....won an award this year, or make mention of "this year". Or else at least append a date to it. When you read an article saying "this year" and you cannot find a date, it is quite maddending. Thank You. 69.1.59.67Idrinkwine


  • I just wrote a 'disscussion' on those 2 mutated penis pictures on the top page. . . and someone deleted it! What was it about? It was disgusting - can we even edit the homepage? was it a hack? Please someone tell me! User:JoWal
Please start new discussions at the bottom - this topic is already being discussed. --Monotonehell 16:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ending Some Speculation

There was no rogue admin that caused the vandalism on the Main Page. What happened was that a template transcluded on the Main Page was not protected (by accident; it was just overlooked). Around 15:30 (UTC), someone spotted the vulnerability and used several sneaky tactics to make the vandalism difficult to spot and fix. This is the result of an error on the part of the admins who did not see the template was not protected. However, realize this is extremely rare. The vandalism of the particular template was not actually removed. If you find it, that's great. However, I'm not going to explain it so that other vandals do not use the devious technique. -- tariqabjotu 16:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The question still remains as to why comments here about it were being reverted... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes people will remove comments if their relevance has expired. The editor who removed the comments may have thought that. However, I endorse keeping these here at least a bit longer as people have questions. It may be a good idea to remove these at some point so potential vandals don't get any ideas as to how to add vandalism that is difficult to detect. -- tariqabjotu 16:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
They were probably chewed up by edit conflicts. I've already had to replace Tariq's post above. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for suggesting there was a rogue admin, I really got rather agitated when I saw the main page... J Milburn 16:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, to quash the speculation that some pretty CSS trick was used to make the picture look really large and dominate the page, the picture was merely set by the vandal to appear at a large size. This was really simple template vandalism that slipped onto the main page because one of the templates was left unprotected. Now, I suggest that we all go looking for the templates and images that will appear on the main page in the next week or two, and make sure they are all protected (or ask for them to be protected). Carcharoth 19:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Comments Disappearing

Well here is one particular instance of comments being deleted... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ihmhi (talk • contribs) 16:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Note what it says above that text: "Please start new discussions at the bottom of this talk page. Thank you." Comments about vandalism that is already being discussed added to the wrong part of the talk page will be removed, no questions asked. —Cuiviénen 16:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for god's sake, people...

More penis vandalism? Am I really going to have to start checking every template myself? Enough. Get your act together. – Gurch 16:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Anybody up for the drama of trying to get an admin bot approved so we can make sure all the templates used on the Main Page and TFA are protected? It's got my support. - BanyanTree 17:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I would also say that protecting the templates would be a start. dposse 17:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I've always wanted a bot that automates the protection of such templates. --Ixfd64 04:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, obviously, we need a dozen or so admins to double check the templates -- not just the one or two that has currently been the case. There might be more times that templates will be overlooked if both of them are busy and go on a wikibreak or something... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


  • Enough is enough! This is the kind of lowly, intolerable and, frankly, disturbing conduct that cannot be accepted - under any circumstances. Wikipedia is used by many young people, including people from age 12 onwards. What about kids being exposed to this horrible image? Right on Christmas Eve! Also, think of people having been brought up in very traditional societies. What will they think about Wikipedia's inability to get its act together? Therefore, I would suggest that the following steps be taken, with immediate effect.

1.) Ban any user/IP address from modifying any part of Wikipedia, if identified with such gross conduct.

2.) Completely and permanently lock down the Main Page and restrict editing to the highest level of administrators

3.) Tighten the terms of editing of this encyclopaedia, especially for a group of articles that can be labelled as "politically or culturally contentious".

If we cannot get this done, then surely, we need to think about removing administrators who don't crack down hard enough on this kind of inacceptable behaviour. Prqc

We already do all of that. The failure to protect this one daily template was a rare oversight. As for removing administrators, this is a volunteer project, no-one is obligated to do any particular job (with a very few exceptions such as Raul as the Featured Article Director and those who volunteer for the Arbitration Committee), so there is no one admin who can be desysopped for failing to protect a template. We could always commit collective hara-kiri and have the entire admin corps desysopped; I'm sure a number of users would be very happy to see that. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Rare? It's the second Main Page penis this month. Such an event should be impossible. Templates on the Featured Article have been infested with phalluses in a regular basis over the last few weeks. Wikipedia is one of the world's most-visited websites. The Main Page is by far our most-visited page. This simply isn't good enough – Gurch 18:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
{I'm just glad that most vandals aren't smart enough to know how to do template vandalism.--Azer Red Si? 21:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have to agree with Gurch, this is not good enough. Even if it was "rare", as asserted by you, Sam, it is nonetheless a gross case of neglect that has brought up the issues I raised in my initial post. I'm certain that you are aware of the fact that Wikipedia is indeed one of the most visited websites on the internet (and rightly so). But in order to protect the sanctity of this project, something needs to be done. Lest you think that I am merely all talk and no action, I would be happy to apply for an admin post myself and monitor the current affairs articles for objectionable opinions/images. How's that for some contribution? Best regards, Prqc 19:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping that this bot request will go through and we will get a centralised list of all the pages that are going on the Main Page tomorrow, and whether they've been protected yet or not. That would make it far harder for pages to slip through. (This post also posted to the similar thread at WP:AN.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sam, much appreciated...but we need to find watertight ways of protecting our pages Prqc 19:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Prqc, wikipedia is not censored. If kids come here and search for the penis article, they are going to find images of a penis. The same goes for the female breast. It is not anyones fault but the parents if their kid comes here and sees disturbing images. I agree that the vandalism has to stop, but i think your arguement goes too far. This is an encyclopedia, not the catholic church. Having pictures of dicks a day before a christian holiday shouldn't mean anything here. Second, this penis vandalism isn't anything new. It's happened to the talk page before, and it happened to many articles on wikipedia. I know, because i was there at Steve Irwins article after his death when it was unprotected. It wasn't a pretty sight. dposse 19:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted, it's not the penises that make this a problem - it's the vandalism, period. It would not be better if it were false information, Ashlee Simpson, or anything else. So the rhetoric about "Think of teh children on Christmas Eve" is kind of beside the point. Phil Sandifer 20:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually it would. An unwanted picture of Ashlee Simpson on the Main Page would be confusing, and irritating for anyone wishing to use the Main Page, but it wouldn't make people recoil in horror, ban their kids from ever visiting the site and pelt us with complaints. However, it is safe to assume that if a high-visibility page is left unprotected, the worst that could possibly be done to it will happen before very long – Gurch 20:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia shouldn't be and is not responsible for what people see on this website. That should be and is the job of the parents of the children to censor what they can and cannot see. All we can do is make sure that we have a system in place that deals with vandals who decide to interupt the workings of this website. dposse 20:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed it shouldn't. It's not about responsibility (at least not until someone sues us); however, that doesn't mean we can shrug off incidents that damage Wikipedia's public image. I don't know if this latest incident was reported in the media, but when they get hold of such a thing, it is. So far Wikipedia's popularity has done nothing but rise, but that could all too easily change – Gurch 22:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Haha, i highly doubt anyone would sue wikipedia. If they did, it would get laughed outta court. This is an encyclopedia which is on the internet. Do people sue merriam-webster for having "fuck" in there? No, of course not. dposse 22:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Censorship is overrated. --Ineffable3000 22:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, dposse, I would normally agree with your argument. However, it is flawed, as the users in question did not actually search for that image (if they had, it would be a totally different ballgame altogether), but it was imposed on them. Surely, only a miniscule proportion of Wikipedia visitors go straight to the item they search for. It's much more convenient to search from the Main Page. It's not about whether Wikipedia gets sued, it's about maintaining standards. It is way too easy to absolve ourselves from responsibility in the name of free speech. Wikipedia needs to set stringent standards as to how we deal with these vandals. In fact, I would wholeheartedly second the idea of banning anonymous IP addresses altogether from being allowed to edit ANY article, as the anonymous users are the main vandals. And just because this sort of vandalism has occurred before doesn't make it less necessary to deal with, on the contrary. If we want Wikipedia to be the very encyclopaedia that is about free distribution of information, then we will have to become strict with those who would seek to abuse the freedom to inform and be informed. Prqc 23:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually agreed with just about everything you just said, Prqc. Vandalism should be stopped as soon as it happens, and we should do everything in our power to stop it. Like i said before, as long as we keep a accurate system in place, we should be fine. I just disagree with your comment that wikipedia should censor itself because children come onto this website, and your indignation at it happening on christmas eve. We deserve, especially on the internet, to have the free exchange of ideas and infomation. dposse 23:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and also, those penis images weren't ones that are stored in Wikipedia's image repository. They were uploaded by the vandal and have since been deleted, some thing which makes an older proposal of mine that newly registered accounts not be allowed to upload images look pretty darn good if you ask me.--Azer Red Si? 23:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't work with Commons since the whole point of registering there is basically to upload material. Dragons flight 23:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Banning IPs is often suggested but routinely rejected. Most edits submitted by IPs are legitimate (something like 80-90%). While IPs, as a class, may account for more vandalism than registered users, it is generally thought that forcing registration is more likely to discourage the good IP contributors than it is to actually be effective at stopping vandalism. All of the recent vandalism seen here, for example, was done by a vandal who registered an account. Dragons flight 23:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
dposse, I agree with you on your ideas regarding the free flow of information...I wasn't referring to censorship as the way out, it isn't. My main point was, which may have been open to interpretation, was the fact that we need to ensure that as many users as possible have the ability to responsibly alter content on Wikipedia. I agree with you, censorship, in whatever guise, would spell a certain reduction of quality in terms of contributions. Prqc 02:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The real discussion took place at WP:ANI

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandalism on Main Page, and please report vandalism like this to the Administrators' incidents noticeboard in future. Thanks.

For the record, the vandal uploaded images to Commons, and put the images in an unprotected template (the POTD one mentioned above). The initial vandalism lasted 8 minutes, was reverted, the vandal re-added the vandalism, this lasted 3 minutes before being reverted, the vandal re-added it again and this time it lasted 1 minute. Then, finally, the unprotected template was protected and the vandal blocked indefinitely. Carcharoth 19:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a bit of additional info: the uploader was also blocked (and IP-blocked) from the Commons. —UED77 01:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It looks like in this case Wikipedia policy wasn't really at fault for what happened. The vandal was just very crafty. Unfortunately I'm sure that a lot of people are going to put all of the blame on Wikipedia. I wonder how donations have been doing since that incident.--Azer Red Si? 22:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up proposal

I've written and posted something on this general issue here. Please comment there on how you think we can tighten up the checks and balances we need to have in place. Carcharoth 22:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Our day off

Haha...look at this [2]. It almost feels weird that this page has not been vandalized at all today (so far). If you want a solution to vandalism, then make every day a major religious holiday. :-D Nishkid64 01:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's good though, no vandalism! But doesn't that also mean that only us workaholics are on at this time? No newbies or anons? Happy Holidays, be sure to spend some time with the family! :) Cbrown1023 01:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
(knocks on wood...) Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it is because people are too stupid to make up a clever form of vandalism for Clement of Dublane. --Ineffable3000 02:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
It's been picking up as of late. It's not like you have to be clever in order to vandalize (the most recent I saw was "PENIS PENIS PENIS POOP").--Azer Red Si? 04:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe because Clement was a Dominican friar, and that has to do with Christianity. Nishkid64 02:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Either way, Raul made a good decision of choosing that article as Today's featured article. And the picture I nominated will be the featured picture the 25th. --Ineffable3000 04:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

again mutated penis

Not to repeat everything. But the thing is still on, or again. As the christmas tree. Maybe someone could remove it? Thanks. --Ben T/C 10:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Already fixed. And I see that now all images on the main page are protected. Wise decision. Ben T/C 10:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
*sigh* – Gurch 11:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
How come I never see any of this? lol --Howard the Duck 11:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
If you ever do, you'll wish you hadn't, trust me – Gurch 12:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Is this the same moron from yesterday at it again?--Azer Red Si? 21:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if it were. --Ixfd64 01:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

largest wikipedia list

I noticed the top category was changed from 250k to 300k. Why was it changed to this? I was hoping to see Dutch jump up to the top tier soon :( Under Logic 11:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as what I've expected. --Howard the Duck 11:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Special page to report vandalsim for non registered users?!

Hi I was just having fund reading random articles and I noticed that the article Midlands_State_University seems to be messed up. I was curious where do I alert registered users of this so that they can revert it?. Is there some special page where unregistered users can report vandalism?. It would be a great idea to at least have such a page in the navigation box so it would be much simpler for everyone to help make wikipedia better. (yes I know I could just register but I don't want to... at least not yet ;) )

  • you can revert the vandalism yourself! look at the top of the page, there's a history tab. click it and find a previous version of the page. then click edit this page, and save the page to revert it. 12:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. In other words, you don't need to register in order to edit'! Hence the "anyone can edit" – Gurch 12:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
haha stupid me :) Thanks a lot, now the vandalism is also reverted so everyone should be happy now I guess! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.213.169.193 (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

Today's Article

Just minor but shouldn't it have something to do with Christmas as today is Christmas Day...? Simply south 14:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Todays only christmas if your christian, and most people arnt. IsaactheNPOVfanatic 14:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering that more than half the world is christian, i think you are mistaken. Anyway, what i think you meant was that christmas isn't notable for the front page just because christians celebrate it. dposse 14:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Its not really just only christians who celebrate it, just to say. Simply south 14:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Well... it's about a Catholic bishop, so it's a Christian topic, on a Christian holiday. That's enough of a connection, I think – Gurch 15:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
True, most people aren't - actually some not most, but excluding non-religious people (like me ;) who still jump on the christmas bandwagon... oh well...) the biggest religion is christianity by far. I think it's worth mentioning it in OTD. 84.64.226.4 16:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Why? What's notable about it this year? dposse 16:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
It's acknowledged by millions of people, that's what. 84.64.226.4 16:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Very true. However, that's meaningless since they celebrate it every year. dposse 16:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
It's mentioned in On This Day as a holiday. There is a related news item in Did You Know. Today's Featured Article is a Christianity-related topic. This should be sufficient; Wikipedia must remain neutral every day of the year (and, sorry dposse, two thirds of the world is not Christian). -- tariqabjotu 16:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
dposse, I suggest you research your facts before making statements like that. Roughly 30% of the world observes some of Christianity, and that basically translates to 2,000,000,000 followers. The world has around 6.5 billion people, so there are easily more non-believers than believers. Nishkid64 19:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
And I previously stated (look a few sections up) that the FA wasn't getting any vandalism in the first two hours possibly because it was a Christianity-related topic. Well, now it's getting hit, but it's still not that heavy. Nishkid64 19:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it also true to say that a large percentage of people whos primary language is English practice Christian religion? I mean, this is in fact the English Wikipedia. MadHistorian 19:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Although it's unsourced at English language, only 350 million speak English as their first language, and I would assume many of those people practice Christianity. My point was about dposse's comments about Christianity in the world, not about Christianity here on the English language Wikipedia. Nishkid64 19:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Getting back to the original question, I'm sure that under ideal circumstances, a Christmas-themed TFA would be gracing the Main Page today, but sadly no-one's gotten around to writing one in the past year. Since Raul has only a limited pool of topics to choose from, it'd been a case of picking the best from the ones available. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Christmas used to be a featured article, and it has been on the Main Page on Christmas before, but it was removed as a featured article because it fell far below modern standards. —Cuiviénen 23:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
About the non-believers outweighing the believers, it's true they do, but the 4.5 billion are spread thinner than the semi-united 2 billion Christians. I could say more but I'd get myself all deep south preacher pissed off and insult many billions of people. DoomsDay349 00:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Although Christmas day is past where I am, just to clarify according to wikipedia article Christian: "It is estimated that there are around 2.1 billion Christians in the world making up 33% of the world population, with the largest Christian denomination being Roman Catholicism."

Also consider the amount of non Christians who appreciate the Christmas holiday as a time of goodwill and not as a religious holidays; certianly millions of people. The fact of the matter is Christmas in the modern world is not just a religious holiday, its a cultural holiday as well; one based on traditions and activities that are more commercial than religious. And although the non believers clearly weigh out the believers/followers, Christmas is an important part of human life in the Western (and not just English) World! So why should we not feature a Christmas related article on the main page on an encyclopedia that acknowledges all aspects of human life (whether its a small school in a place no ones heard or a holiday that billions of people know of? I suppose what I want to say is this; the ultimate aim of wikipedia is surely the diffusion of knowledge; so wheres the harm in diffusing some knowledge thats related to something we've all heard of on a day thats important to the knowledge of its subject! Merry Christmas. LordHarris 02:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but you are forgetting that Wikipedia is a neuetral encyclopedia, not a forum. Even if 99% of the world celebrated Christmas, it should still be the job of an encyclopedia to respect that 1%. Besides, a main page article of Chirstmas would have to be perfectly worded so that there can be no question of wrong information or non-nuetrality or else we'd REALLY have a problem. Well, either way, merry christmas to all who celebrate. 04:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Crab Nebula

Please correct the errors discussed on the Crab Nebula featured picture discussion page. --Ineffable3000 20:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong? Another penis vandal? dposse 21:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Light years wide instead of light years away. --Ineffable3000 21:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
A wrong picture? That's kinda rare. dposse 21:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it correct now? It says light years wide now. Nishkid64 21:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. :) --Ineffable3000 21:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

wikifying encyclopedia in subtitle

Can someone wikify it, as the page is protected? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lakinekaki (talk • contribs) 10:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

It was decided by past consensus that the link to Wikipedia which contains links to all the terms is enough. Having many links in the title was considered too cluttered. --Monotonehell 11:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Lakinekaki 11:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

donation thing at the top of the page

Re: Can someone PLEASE take that big ass donation thing off the top of the page?

Please? - Anonymous, 2:13 12/17.06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.19.12.207 (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Just click the "dismiss" link to the right of it. That sets a cookie that will prevent the donation bar from appearing. If you do not have a cookie-enabled browser, however, I guess you're out of luck --Jmax- 22:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Plus you have to be a registered user. Chris as I am Chris 22:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

can i ask. what will the donations help towards. i mean will you see the outcome of what was done with the money?

How about moving it to the sidebar? It would be still prominent on every page, but less intrusive. Rafy 00:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's supposed to be intrusive. If it's easily ignored, people won't get guilted/annoyed into contributing. See pledge drive for background on the annoyance factor, though people outside the U.S. that have state-funded public stations may find this whole idea weird. - BanyanTree 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Believe it or not, in previous fund drives, people have looked at the size of the notice vs. the number of donations, and it actually does increase donations significantly to make it slightly more intrusive. It's a bit of a pain, but it's worth it for the Foundation. Ral315 (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
well, if this is an arms race of sorts, does this mean it will take up half the screen, flash and play jingle-bells in two years' time? I find it bearable still, but the 'dismiss' link will prompt many people in reflexively switching it off without even looking at it -- so maybe a small bar that cannot be switched off will turn out to produce a greater effect than a big annoying banner you switch off and forget §about in two seconds. dab (𒁳) 10:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it won't. For starters, not all English Wikipedia readers are Christian or in the Northern Hemisphere, and thus Jingle Bells is irrelevant. Anyway, take a look at the pledge drive. As you may seem, there's multiple people/organizations matching donations, something we have never had before. This trend will continue, and will mean our goals are reached quicker. There is no other way to keep Wikimedia running as one of the top 10 most visited websites internationally, other than soliciting money. So get over it. -- Zanimum 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
For example, I like it, and I enjoy refreshing the browser sometimes just to see how much it did increase. :) --V. Szabolcs 20:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Choose one of the following actions:

  • Create an account, log in, donate, click dismiss.
  • Create an account, log in, don't donate, click dismiss.
  • Don't create an account, put up with it, stop complaining, it won't be there forever.

--Monotonehell 06:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

i just use adblock to remove them... The Uber Ninja 09:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
If you're logged in just press "dismiss". --Monotonehell 09:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and adblock shouldn't be able to remove it, as it's hosted on-site. -- Zanimum 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Uh... why not? The Adblock extension for Firefox, and most other decent ad blockers, can block individual scripts, images or objects without blocking an entire site – Gurch 23:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Stop complaining from an IP. Follow WP:DICK. --Ineffable3000 03:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think you can classify objecting to begging notices as being a dick. I mean, the guy even said please. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
If he really cared about the Wikipedia project, he would get an account, would do many legitimate edits, and wouldn't be here complaining about minor flaws. --Ineffable3000 21:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I wouldn't call him a dick. Ironically, directing thing him a link to an article just to say "don't be a dick" is alot more dickish than asking for a way to get rid of the banner.DarkGhost89 08:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
How does telling someone to stop being a fucking douchebag compare? --Cyde Weys 04:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
He has a Point, nevertheless...82.171.188.144 14:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

how much do i need to donate?

how much do i need to donate to have a article of myself? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wtfmaaan (talk • contribs) 08:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm afraid that that's not how Wikipedia works. Unless your donation is huge enough to be covered by multiple news agencies, it will not in itself confer the required notability for an article on you. If you want to be covered by Wikipedia, your best bet is to do something unique or notable ennough for the media and world at large to take notice of you. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 08:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and there was me thinking my 50p would get me an article. MFlet1 09:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
You can, of course, make yourself a user page for nothing; just go to User:Wtfmaaan and start typing – Gurch 11:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
you mean, DFTTmaaan. dab (𒁳) 11:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

man then what's the point of donating when u dont get anything back. i'd spent the money to get a can of coke —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wtfmaaan (talk • contribs).

Funny, I thought people were paying for the continued pleasure of having and being able to contribute to an online encyclopedia. The project as a whole is primarily financed by donations. Dragons flight 16:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Donating literally means giving money or items in return for little or nothing substantive. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 17:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's your money, not mine --Signaleer 18:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:VAIN. However, if you donate a billion dollars, CNN might do a 30-second shot about you, and you might get a stub article. --Ineffable3000 21:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I would venture a guess that a $1 billion donation will get more then a stub. Nil Einne 17:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm totally confused. I could swear that I saw the donation had reached 500,000 earlier today, then later on it suddenly became 400,000 and now it's back to 600,000 dollars! Am I hallucinating? --Gunsfornuns 05:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Positioning of appeal banner

The banner that runs across all pages asking for donations to the Wikimedia Foundation clashes with the co-ordinates for cities at the top of their pages. It would be good if someone who knows how to do it could sort this. Thanks. Itsmejudith 11:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that really the best place for coordinates? Wouldn't it be better with the rest of the article? Koweja 01:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the position of coordinates generated by {{coor title dms}}, etc are absolute on the page, rather than relative to the title of the page. In previous funding drives the location was just moved down temporarily, but I have no idea what sort of workaround is possible when some users see the banner and some do not. I have asked this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#donations banner. - BanyanTree 03:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Top of main page

it reads:

Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
1,711,244 articles in English


I think it'd look better with the last line:

Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.


I think that'd look better, non? (I don't know why the formatting is off.) → JARED (t)  16:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather we didn't - we're focusing on the quality of our articles rather than the quantity at the moment. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not think it could hurt to make this tiny change, but perhaps the phrase "and counting" does put a bit too much emphasis on quantity over quality. I do think that a link like this would be useful in getting people to start a new article. --Ihmhi 16:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm with Ihmhi on that Samaster1991 16:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
No, because we don't want people to start new articles. Seriously, we don't. We want people to improve existing ones. We get far too many junk articles that then have to be deleted as it is, without encouraging more of them. It would be better, in fact, to remove the article count from the Main Page altogether; this was extensively discussed and for a time it wasn't there at all. Whereas in the early days of Wikipedia it was necessary to focus on the number of articles in order to increase basic coverage of important topics, the project now has more than enough articles, and the focus has shifted, as Sam Blanning mentioned, to improving existing articles rather than creating new ones. Also, anonymous users can't start articles at all (this was necessary to stem the aforementioned flood of junk articles) so this would be unhelpful – Gurch 16:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
If we don't want people to start new articles, why not just disable it? Should be easy enough, because unregistered users could't start new articles, so just expand it to include all registered users too. Then if something new happens that is encyclopedic (Olympic Games, presidential elections, etc.) nobody could start a new article and pretty soon Wikipedia will be so far behind that Citizendium could finally be the ultimate online encyclopedia. Thank you Wikipedia! --Gunsfornuns 17:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Straw man. - BanyanTree 17:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
No straw man at all. He did say "we don't want people to start new articles. Seriously, we don't". If you think I take it out of context, read Gurch's response again and see if he actually says otherwise.--Gunsfornuns 20:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The comment in question was not intended to be taken literally. Gurch meant that we want to encourage people to invest more effort in improving existing articles than in creating new ones. The proposed wording would have the opposite effect. —David Levy 18:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
We want people to create verified, neutral articles on topics of encyclopaedic interest; the Main Page is not for us, it's for our readers (the vast majority of Wikipedia's traffic), and the vast majority of them won't have any inclination, nor the ability, to do that. We already have links to the Introduction and the Help Pages, which is a much better path towards editing to follow. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
That's not what he said--Gunsfornuns 18:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
We do want people to create new appropriate articles if they wish, or improve existing ones if that's what they wish.--Azer Red Si? 21:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
That's not what he said either--Gunsfornuns 18:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, people have been arguing about what I said rather than the actual issue at hand. That'll teach me to reply to things. On an unrelated note, how did that "WWWWikipedia" get into my comment? It wasn't in my original post – Gurch 19:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Presumably, a test edit went unreverted at some point. —David Levy 19:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
In addition to the de-emphasis of quantity and problematic nature of the proposed link, this exact wording was proposed and rejected during the recent main page redesign process. As I noted at the time, the phrase "and counting" is a figure of speech that would seem confusing or nonsensical to some people for whom English is not a primary language. Also, the "in English" wording was included to avoid falsely conveying that all of the Wikipedias combined contain only 1,711,244 articles. —David Levy 17:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


I have to say I prefer:

Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
1,711,244 articles in English and counting


It adds the nice extra bit and doesn't provide misinformation. --Muna 02:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"As I noted at the time, the phrase "and counting" is a figure of speech that would seem confusing or nonsensical to some people for whom English is not a primary language." You could change it to so far or at this time --Muna 02:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Can't we just put the "and counting" part at all Wikipedia's indifferent of the language, that should solve all problems.--Eternal Imortal 13:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your suggestion. —David Levy 18:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Main page

This isn't really a big deal, but if you look on the side under navigation, the first link is to the "Main page" with lowercase p. The p is supposed to be capitalized, i.e. "Main Page". --75.20.219.75 17:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is deliberate, but I suspect it might be - Wikipedia:Community Portal has the same mismatch between capitalisation in the title and on the sidebar. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
This is, in fact, deliberate. (Also note that a Community portal link has existed on the main page since March.) Both Main Page and Wikipedia:Community Portal are inconsistent with our MoS-prescribed naming conventions and the titles of other project pages. We've retained the former for logistical reasons. I've proposed that the latter be changed. —David Levy 18:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
See also: #Requested move

"Main Page"?

What if someone was actually looking for an article called "main page"? Why not move this page to Wikipedia:Main Page?, delete Main Page as it is now and then re-create it as an actual article? Just a suggestion. --172.194.17.74 03:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

1. The idea of moving the main page has been discussed from time to time, and it's been decided to leave it at Main Page for logistical reasons.
2. If we were to move page to the Wikipedia namespace, we also would correct the capitalization to comply with our Manual of Style (which didn't exist when the page was created); the title would be Wikipedia:Main page. Actually, it's been argued that we shouldn't even refer to it as the "main page." ("Front page" would be a possible alternative.)
3. Under no circumstance will Main Page ever be used for another purpose. This is, by far, the page most likely sought by someone typing that phrase. Even if a best-selling novel entitled Main Page is published, it won't usurp the title. If the page were to be moved elsewhere, Main Page would become a redirect to the new location. —David Levy 03:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Leave it as it is now. And remove any search that leads to the Main Page. Only an idiot would search for the main page. --Ineffable3000 04:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

To not naming it the main page, in theory, it is as it is the most visited page, thus the "main page". Just a little smart-assing for you :).

Yeah imagine a best-selling book being called Main Page...we'd need to have a disambiguation link on the main page. That would not be good. --WikiSlasher 05:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

See also: #Requested move

The ultimate solution to vandalism

A while ago I read a news article about a revised Wikipedia editing system. In this system, edits made to pages do not appear immediately. They must be viewed and approved by an admin before actually replacing the current revision of the page. This is, if I'm not mistaken, already being tried on the German Wikipedia. I have been in approval of this ever since I saw it, and that "mutilated penis" incident has just made me all the more so. If this is implemented, vandalism as we know it will cease to exist and Wikipedia's potential as a functioning encyclopedia will increase a hundredfold. And in addition, there will be no more need for page protection, as any edits made will be reviewed before going into effect. Who's with me on this?--Azer Red Si? 21:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

One problem. There's only ~1050 admins on Wikipedia. We'd get backlogged so fast that this system would be pointless. Would you really want to wait an hour or two before your edit is actually processed? Nishkid64 21:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that is a concern, but I'm beginning to think that that's the only way that Wikipedia will be able to achieve true credibility as an encyclopedia. Maybe it should start creating more admins, or maybe give certain users the right to shift revisions of pages while ommitting them other rights such as block rights.--Azer Red Si? 21:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I've suggested in the past the Wikipedia content presented to not logged in visitors might be made subject to a stability criterion, so that only versions that have persisted unaltered for at least 15 minutes be shown to visitors. In my plan, versions that are created and then reverted within 15 minutes need never be shown to the public at large. Admin edits could be made exempt from the criterion to avoid vandals trying to use it against us. Dragons flight 21:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
What "mutilated penis" incident are you talking about? There are penile disease pictures on Wikipedia but that is encyclopedic. --Ineffable3000 21:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The one that appeared on the Main Page earlier today. Again. Dragons flight, it's a good idea, but there would be problems. Example: article is vandalised, 15 minutes later the vandalised version becomes the displayed version, someone reads it, spots the vandalism and fixes it. But they're not an administrator, so the vandalism persists, visible to everyone, for another 15 minutes. The majority of vandalism is reverted by non-admins, and we don't have anywhere near enough of them to go chasing after edits that fixed vandalism but haven't been shown because they weren't made by an administrator. Having completely separate display and development versions of popular articles would be better, but at the rate MediaWiki development is currently going won't be with us for some time, if ever – Gurch 21:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict with Gurch]

So admins are the only users on Wikipedia who are exempt? There are hundreds of users who do just as much good if not more. Another solution, would be to, oh I don't know, stop letting IPs edit. They are the main vandals on this website. --SonicChao talk 21:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been just about 100 million edits made since 2002. That's what, 25 million edits a year on average? That's 68,000 edits a day. No way in hell are 1,000 editors going to slog through that 24/7. — ceejayoz talk 22:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

68,000/1,000 = 68 edits per day per administrative editor. I'm sure some admin/editors on this wiki do far more edit-actions daily now, and many if not most involve removing innappropriate or incorrect content that was allowed in for a minute or a day or a year before it was corrected or removed. Under a matured editorial system, edits by trusted non-administrative editors could be given higher priority, and edits by new editors could wait for approval. This could push much article-creation work into venues outside Wikipedia so that new articles submitted would arrive sourced, verified and copy-edited.
Administrative edting tasks that involve selecting valid, useful content could attract a different class of adminsitrating editors. For better or worse, admins now primarily serve as janitors. The job, no offense, attracts people who are comfortable in highly conflicted, gamey environments. A shift in administrative responsibilities might attract a more academically oriented group of volunteers to supplement the current cadre of strong-armed janitors.Amicus Sparticus 08:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we could get bots to do it that flag edits with certain key words/text that are likely vandalism, and these suspicious edits could be reviewed by admins.--Azer Red Si? 22:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
And then people catch on and name pictures of dicks to "sunshine"? dposse 23:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that couldn't always be avoided, but this isn't intended to be just solution to image vandalism, but to vandalism in general. For instance, say some vandal thought that it would be funny to post the word "poop" all over an article. "Poop" would be one of the key words and this revision would be flagged for an admin to review before becoming the current revision.--Azer Red Si? 23:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
My best solution to image vandalism is to not allow newly-registered accounts to upload images (e.g. accounts should have at least accumulated enough edits to edit semi-protected pages before they can upload images).--Azer Red Si? 23:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
This already happens. In fact, not only do bots pick out suspicious edits, they revert them as well. User:AntiVandalBot. – Gurch 23:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I was talking about within the proposed revised editing system (edits made do not appear immediately, but first have to be approved). Considering the number of edits that Wikipedia gets, admins would never be able to keep up with this, so I proposed bots that would cause edits made to articles to go into effect unless the edits contained suspicious terms that were likely an indication of vandalism, in which case those suspicious edits would be flagged for admin review before going into effect.--Azer Red Si? 00:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Keyword flagging is essentially what's happening with User:Lupin/Filter recent changes (may not be viewable without the JavaScript entry in your monobook). Banning IP edits has been repeatedly discussed and rejected/failed to gain consensus. There was also a proposal to only allow users with email addresses registered to upload images, but I don't think it was ever implemented. Requiring a minimum number of edits to upload images might reduce the vandalism, but it's pretty contrary to the "anyone can edit" spirit.--Kchase T 23:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well so is semi-protecting pages (only registered users with I think twenty 20 edits can edit them) and protecting the main page, and we do all of that.--Azer Red Si? 00:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
It's four days, as described in our semi-protection policy. That said, this suggestion probably won't fly, as it goes against our foundation issues. Titoxd(?!?) 00:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I don’t know that the admin pre-read approach would be practicable and, if it were, the nuisance would simply drive a lot of current editors away and discourage many new ones from joining. What I would rather see is elimination of “drive-by editing” through requiring joining up as a member before one can edit. That would eliminate most of the petty vandalism which is due simply to being able to edit on a whim with complete anonymity (not to mention all the time wasted reverting their nonsense). Serious — and semi-serious — editors have no problems with becoming members. This wouldn’t eliminate the recent pornographic vandalism performed by an ill-intentioned person who was willing to become a member and wait out the four-day upload restriction; extending it to 7 days or even 30 days might help and wouldn’t hurt, but even so not all examples would be prevented, simply because there are some sick people who really get a kick out of doing sick things. Still, becoming a member eliminates a certain degree of anonymity and binds them to certain conditions of responsibility. The recent pornographic vandalism recently posted appears break a number of laws, so it might strengthen any case against them that the authorities might pursue (assuming Wikipedia notifies them of the case). Askari Mark (Talk) 00:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to be the free encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. This system, if implemented, will probably deter many new users from joining Wikipedia. Another problem: How will the edits be attributed to a user? The history of articles will only show admin edits, so everybody else will have a low edit count. Encarta already uses a system similar to this. If this system is implemented, won't Wikipedia become just like Encarta? Yes, this will completely get rid of vandalism, but the existing system, with a few improvements (like protecting the high-risk templates on featured articles, for example), is already good enough. Besides, our goal is not to eliminate vandalism, it is just to keep it to a minimum. Vandalism is inevitable in a user-contributed encyclopedia. --67.116.239.213 01:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure that the software could be modified so that the contribs for each indiviual user could be viewed, though the admins (or bots) would still have to upload the most recent changes to a page before that version could actually be viewed. And going with this system would actually help Wikipedia to live more fully up to its name as the encyclopedia that anyone could edit: under this system, there would no longer be a need for page protection because any edits made would have to be "activated" before going into effect.--Azer Red Si? 00:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree fully with comment by 67.116.239.213. Above SonicChao suggested to stop letting anonymous IPs edit. Would mean we wouldn't have comments like the above. And more that we would miss. Jimbo Wales emphasizes in all talks that I heard the number 1500 or 1000, as the number of editors that keep the project going and make nearly all valuable contributions (very similar, I don't remember the exact wording he uses). I think that's crap. It's impossible for 1500 users to write 1,500,000 articles. Or even the good ones, if you can name such a group. As far as I could see, a lot of admins or people with many edits didn't contribute a single article. They tag articles, delete them, and correct grammar. That's important also, agreed. To my knowledge there has been no investigation yet, who really writes the articles (compare Who Writes Wikipedia?). There is only this number 1500 around. I am convinced there is a long tail in the frequency distribution of contributions in the sense that added up, unregistered users make more edits than the group of registered ones. And I am sure, anyone is the one, who write the articles, anonymous IPs, e.g. That's the revolutionary idea about wikipedia, if you didn't understand it yet. If you don't like it, maybe you should have a look at Larry Sanger's new project. I am sure it will fail. --Ben T/C 10:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
A simplified version of what actually happens is this: Lots of anonymous and new users add information in a few big chunks, then administrators and regular editors make lots of small edits to tidy it up. Almost all our content comes from anonymous or infrequent contributors, but without the relatively small number of dedicated users checking and correcting it, and generally ensuring some level of consistency across the site, it would be a massive jumble of nonsense rather than an encyclopedia – Gurch 12:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I see no merit whatsoeber to the fact that "anyone can edit" Wikipedia. Most of the edits by new IP addresses appear to be be vandalism, and editors who want to make Wikipedia something to be proud of have to spend their time reverting stupid vandalism and posting meaningless warnings on IP address talk pages. A given page may be vandalized a dozen times a day, and the vandal can insert the word "poop" or someone's name in an article way faster than another editor can revert it and paste a warning template. Blocking an IP address at a school or library for 12 hours or 24 hours after several warnings and posting on an admin noticeboard is a pretty lame and ineffective penalty. Edison 18:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
This proposal, or any proposal that takes away the live updating of Wikipedia goes against the Wiki founding principles [Wales/Statement of principles] which states in item #3 "'You can edit this page right now' is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred." Rugz 17:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
How about a system where every change has to be checked by at least 2 users (not necessarily admins) and approved before it goes live? This might keep things moving. This would only be applied to new users. A user could then be deemed "trustworthy" and his changes would be used immediately. I think this would be highly effective. Mrmaroon25 20:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

James Brown taken off "in the news"

So I noticed James Brown's death was on In The News, but prompty got taken off. I'm upset. Is this not relevant? He's an incredibly important figure in American music. INCREDIBLY important. I think news of his passing might be a bit more relevant to English speaking people than news of Ethiopia invading Somalia. NIRVANA2764 01:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree on this one. Usually, deaths are not included, but James Brown is an ideal 5b candidate: "the deceased was a key figure in their field of expertise, and died unexpectedly or tragically". His death was unexpected (he was scheduled to perform in my hometown on Thursday!) and he was a defining figure in the field. The topic is currently under discussion at Template talk:In the news#James Brown death, however. —Cuiviénen 02:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The James Brown article contains three sentences pertaining to his death (up from the two sentences that it contained when the entry was added and removed). —David Levy 02:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
So we should write a full paragraph section everytime a person dies a in order for it to be added in the main page? (Of course, those persons which had rather notable deaths, like the Russian spy deserve a section). --Howard the Duck 12:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Well basically yes, that's one of the requirments of ITN. Ignore that, I misread your comment. --Monotonehell 13:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't pad articles with prose that doesn't belong. Some news, however prominent, simply doesn't warrant article creation/updates that result in ITN qualification. There is, however, ongoing discussion of revamping the section. —David Levy

Wikipedia Standard Time

What time zone is Wikipedia run from? For example, I would assume that the featured stuff on the main page is changed around midnight, but midnight in what time zone? If there is no set time zone Wikipedia runs on, then that should be taken into consideration. Seldon1 04:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's servers are located in Florida, which is in the North American Eastern Time Zone, but Wikipedia uses Coordinated Universal Time as its default. —Cuiviénen 04:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. Hence "UTC," I suppose. Thanks. Seldon1 04:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, it changes when it's 4:00pm in Los Angeles (5p in the summer), 7:00pm in New York (8p in the summer), 9:00pm in Rio de Janeiro, 12:00am in London (1a in the summer), 1:00am in Paris (2a in the summer), 2:00am in Jerusalem, 3:00am in Moscow, 4:00am in Dubai, 5:30am in Mumbai, 7:00am in Bangkok, 8:00am in Beijing, 9:00am in Tokyo, 11:00am in Sydney (10a in the winter), 1:00pm in Wellington (12p in the winter). -- tariqabjotu 04:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I live in the UK and so my time zone is UTC, but everytime I make and edit say, 11:34pm, 22 Dec. and then I go to my Watchlist and Wikipedia tells me I made this edit on 12:34am, 23 Dec. AxG (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Check your preferences and set the time offset (in the date and time section) to zero. --Cherry blossom tree 15:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
During Daylight Savings Time, the UK does not observe UTC. —Cuiviénen 16:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed we do not. But we are in UTC at the moment – Gurch 23:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you reset your offset to 0 or not? Nil Einne 13:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I did. AxG (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't read the thread properly. I thought you were the one saying we're in UTC at the moment and therefore you meant you still had the problem. I'm guessing it did work. Nil Einne 15:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Five Pillars

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Five pillars. --15:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong devnagari symbol for "wi" in Wikipedia's logo

The wikipedia globe image contains wrong devnagari symbol for "wi". The correct one should be :
Image:Devnagari_logo.jpg

- Vishalmungi 14:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh. They're meant to be specific symbols? I thought they were just random letters from different alphabets – Gurch 14:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
They're all "W" or "Wi" sounds (or a close equivalent). I think there is a better place to bring this up, but I'm not sure where. —Cuiviénen 16:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to User:Ambuj.Saxena/Wikipedia-logo and its talk page.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 16:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Cyrillic one is "I" and the Greek one is "O". They're indeed random letters, not approximations of W. Zocky | picture popups 16:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This came up once before as the Japanese katakana at the top is "kwi" and someone thought "wi" was meant, as it's only one stroke away. It eventually came back that the letters were chosen pretty much randomly, though the "W" is confusing. - BanyanTree 17:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
In that case, why did the logo creator choose "W" for the English letter?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. Why not ask him? – Gurch 18:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The backstory is at meta:Meta:Historical/Logo history, though the actual meaning of the letters/characters is not mentioned. - BanyanTree 19:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

but the Devanagari symbol isn't even valid, it doesn't just not mean "vi", it is meaningless. Clearly, the creator intended vi but got it wrong (WP:COMPLEX). I do think this should be fixed, it is embarassing. dab (𒁳) 18:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's wrong that's cool, it represents the inaccurate information in Wikipedia :) --WikiSlasher 00:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

lol. Just H 03:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyway theres no character like the present one shown, in devnagari.. so how can this be changed ? -- 125.18.2.10 06:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

the issue was discussed with the creator of the logo, User:Nohat. His comments are here: it's too cumbersome for him to fix the mistakes in the indic and japanese characters because the logo was designed on some advanced graphics program and he will not settle for a lower image quality to fix the logo (even if the lower quality is hardly descernible to readers). the only solution now is for someone to step up and create the same logo from scratch with the characters fixed. any takers? --mowglee 10:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

hah, now that is representative of Wikipedia. If we have to choose between shiny templates, icons, bells and whistles on one hand and actual accuracy of content on the other, our choice is obvious! dab (𒁳) 16:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The logo is a trademark of the Wikipedia Foundation. It is not subject to the same editing policies as Wikipedia content. Even if someone were to make an acceptable replacement image, any change to the logo will have to be subject to the approval of the board. Nohat 20:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Then we will have to tell the board.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Ford's death on In The News

Okay, first James Brown's death isn't important enough to qualify as news, and now Gerald Ford? Who was the last surviving member of the Warren Comission? A former President? Shame on you, Wikipedia.

huh? It's up there, chief. Just H 02:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You can begin the onslaught of technicalities now. NIRVANA2764 14:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically, Arlen Specter is the last surviving member of the Warren Commission. Having said that, I think Gerald Ford's death should be on ITN. I don't think James Brown's death should have been, but Ford is much more notable. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 14:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see it's up there now. :) NIRVANA2764 15:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
What is/isn't notable is subjective, as many people on this site have claimed James Brown is more notable than Ford. That is why notability should be kept out of the discussion whenever possible. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-12-27 16:32Z
Furthermore, notability wasn't the only issue. James Brown was taken off ITN because his article was deemed inadequately updated. Please see various related discussions on Template talk:In the news#Gerald Ford?. --PFHLai 17:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggested this news tidbit at about 12 midnight EST (05:00 UTC) on IRC, and there was some users who disagreed with it being put on there. I shrugged and guessed that the death of an American president was not worldwide enough to merit an ITN mention, and didn't add it. I guess I should have been bold and added it anyway, but I just figured I was an ignorant American. Oh well. What's past is past. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The Gerald Ford article at 00:00, 2006 December 27 EST had merely 2 sentences in the "death" section. Posting that on ITN at the time would be too early and against ITN guidelines, as ITN is a place to feature well updated articles, not a news-ticker. Someone posted it anyway. Someone else then took it off. The line returned soon after, as the page has grown quite a bit since. --PFHLai 06:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

100,000,000+ edits

I just noticed that users on English Wikipedia now have made 100,128,601 edits. --Camptown 16:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get that figure from? Simply south 16:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Statistics --Camptown 16:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Any idea on what the 100 millionth edit was? (Then again, that would be hard to find). Simply south 16:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Remember that day when we celebrated 1,500,000 articles? How did we calculate that?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 16:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone narrowed it down to three new stubs and then waited for two to be AFDed ;) --Monotonehell 17:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I guess we'll have to work our way back recent changes to determine the edit. =( Ed ¿Cómo estás? 17:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Yipes! Good luck. Simply south 17:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Wait! It says that there are 1,552,539 articles, not 100,000,000! Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 18:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
100,000,000 edits not articles. BTW the millionth article was measured exactly, unlike the 1.5 millionth. Prodego talk 18:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Why not 1.5? Just H 02:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't important. Apart from the fact that it's not as round a number as 1,000,000, the 1,000,000th article and the Wikimania convention shortly afterwards were the cue for a shifting of focus onto quality of articles rather than quantity. 10,000 featured articles will be more of a milestone than 10,000,000 articles. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit odd that Special:Statistics says 100,776,607 edits, yet the latest edit id is 97378693 [3]. I'm way too lazy to find out where the discrepancy comes from. --- RockMFR 19:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A NEGATIVE DONATION WAS JUST MADE

Your donation thing just dropped by 200 000 dollars. I saw this and did not know who to tell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Conrad.Irwin (talk • contribs) 21:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

There was a stock donation, apparently according to the live list of donations. They might have excluded this from the total, it could be phony, or some other reason. I'm sure we will find out what's going on within the hour. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, see my comment at WP:VPN#Massive_donation.3F. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 22:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice!

Woohoo! Does that mean I can go in there and put in a negative number and they'd actually pay me? I gave them around 3500 edits, it only seems fair. :-) Just H 01:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, your post does not seem to be written in good faith. In any case, you are suffering from editcountitis. Joecool94 15:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I didn't even scroll down to see the whole picture, but I'm pretty sure whatever is at the bottom of the page is vandalism. ShadowUltra 23:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on the mainpage...again

I managed to scroll away before I saw much of it, but there's some sort of major vandalism on the main page. I remember this happened a few days ago. Can someone fix it? ...again? RememberMe? 23:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

  • How can the main page of wikipedia become vandalized? Flying Hamster 23:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Admin on Wheels? Just H 02:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't ask me, but it's been done before somehow. I think it's either a hacker, or they're editing a featured article before it gets protected. RememberMe? 23:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If someone hits a template that is transcluded on the Main Page, then the page can be vandalised. Nishkid64 23:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, well shouldn't that be easy to fix? RememberMe? 23:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It is, but this is a recurring problem. This is happening almost daily now. Something really needs to be done about this. ShadowUltra 23:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah. I still can't see what has been vandalized though. Apparently, someone said it was DYK, but I know I protected the image before putting it on the Main Page (and yes, it was protected). Anyone know where this happened? Nishkid64 00:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Shit. It was on the DYK. It was {{Baseball Year}} which I had used for my DYK on Guy Bush. Sorry. =( Nishkid64 00:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Don't beat yourself over it. I bet that's the last time you make that mistake. - BanyanTree 01:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
        • The picture was quite disturbing as well as high-res i might add. Flying Hamster 00:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Why does {{Baseball Year}} exist? It seems so... useless. -- tariqabjotu 05:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
          • It's a shortcut template. Instead of typing out [[1955 in baseball|1955]], we can just use do {{BY|1955}}. It saves us a good deal of time. Nishkid64 20:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict x 2) It was a template used in a DYK item; I caught the unprotected template and protected at the same moment as the vandalism and then reverted, so luckily it was removed within a minute. :-) But when updating any items on the Main Page, please look for templates used and either subst them or protect them. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there room for a bot that would run on Main Page/Tomorrow, check the page and give a list of templates that need to be protected? RHB 00:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The bot doing User:Shadowbot2/Report would appear to be the best bet for a request. I've already asked if it can check for templates used in the text at Template:Did you know/Next update. More admins watching that report would be appreciated. - BanyanTree 01:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've put a note about templates on the warning message I added earlier in the week. Hopefully that should help stop such things happening in future – Gurch 14:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Virgin Unite Logo

Can someone think seriously about removing that Virgin Unite Logo and message near the donation counter. Or atleast the Logo and external link. It is simply looking like another ad on common commercial webpages.--Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 00:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And it links to a dead site ... :-) bogdan 00:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
See the Fundraising FAQ on the matching donation. And their servers seemed to crash when we linked to them so the current guess is that they blanked the page in order to keep their site at least running. - BanyanTree 00:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Their "servers"? I suspect they had one' single dedicated server (Netcraft says it's Linux + Apache). That's the Wikipedia effect! :-) bogdan 00:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The Virgin link, though, works fine if you want to order an airline ticket... Camptown 10:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not an ad. The closest analogy is a sponsorship message. Virgin Unite is being generous and matching all donations from today; in response, we are thanking them. It's different than an advertisement, because in an advertisement, the advertiser is the one choosing the message. In this instance, it is the WMF Board that has chosen the message. They could have just as easily not had a matching message at all, but that wouldn't be as good for donations, and it would discourage more future matchers. Anyway, none of us really has the authority to remove the message; it'd have to be done by a Board member. These are the Foundation's servers, after all. --Cyde Weys 00:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If we don't have the authority to remove the message, then what's the point of this talk page section? It doesn't seem like many editors have the authority to do all that much to be honest with you, Cyde. Just H 02:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, come on! A donation is a donation whether big or small. All the visitors of Wikipedia (Main Page) can see the logo and deduce that it is there to gain commercial leverage. If this continues we're soon gonna see similar ad (I still call it ad) from various big firms who are being generous by donating there money to us. Big or small, every donation is hard earned money spent without a thought about any gain in return. Definitions conveniently change when a big donation is expected.--Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 01:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
ACCEPTING donations is one thing, BEGGING for them is another. It's sad to see this transformation into Beggaropedia. 24.80.236.118 01:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
We aren't begging, we are asking for donations. We've done this multiple times over the years to cover server costs and such. If you don't think we need the funding to keep running our servers, fine, you can go read some other encyclopedia. But calling us "Beggaropedia" is very unfair. --Cyde Weys 01:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Seems pretty fair to me. That's what we're doing, might as well accept it rather than put negative connotations onto it. PBS does it all the time. Just H 01:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't know how you define begging in the US, but countries like the NZ, Malaysia and probably the UK, asking for donations to a charitiable foundations is not usually called begging. Nil Einne 14:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It is unfair to call Wikipedia by that name. There is a big difference between begging and accepting donations. There is no personal gain involved in working on articles for free and accepting donations for the practical needs of the project.--Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 01:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, there is a big difference. If you say "no, I don't want to give you any money" and then you don't have to hear about it anymore if you don't want to, that's accepting donations. If that begging box at the top doesn't go away after that, then it's begging. I keep on trying to turn the thing off, and it keeps on coming back.Just H 02:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Clicking on "dismiss" should remove the SiteNotice (the fundraiser message); are you sure you have cookies enabled on your computer? Also note that whenever the SiteNotice is updated (i.e. the addition of new matching sponsors), the SiteNotice will reappear and you'll have to click dismiss again. However, these updates should be relatively rare, as the "dismiss" link was designed for editors' convenience. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I clicked it, but the ad comes back after a few page changes. Just H 20:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Second Part of the Convo

Um, Virgin Unite is a charitable organization. What do you mean by "commercial leverage"? — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Virgin (the parent company) is not.--Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 01:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Dark Shikari, you think they'd get the same amount of donations if they didn't have the Virgin logo there, or just called themselves "Unite" rather than "Virgin Unite"? Just because it looks like it's non-profit doesn't mean they're doing it for free, they're putting that logo up there for exposure, which in itself assists their parent company to...get profit. Just H 01:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
They have Virgin Unite in a .co.uk domain rather than .org.uk, so they apparently regard it as more of a company than a nonprofit organization. *Dan T.* 01:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't put too much stock in that. I try to run my websites on .com domains, even though they are utterly non-commercial (like just a blog). .com is more popular than .net and .org, and .co.uk is certainly more popular than .org.uk. It's not like there's any kind of strict rules on this stuff anyway. Anyone can buy a .com, .net, or .org and use it for any purpose. --Cyde Weys 01:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Domain misuse is one of my big pet peeves, as documented on my Domain Site. And I go out of my way to use non-dot-com domains for all of my noncommercial sites (as does Wikipedia as well; note that it's at wikipedia.org). *Dan T.* 03:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


Somebody at least had the good sense to change the external Virgin Unite link to internal Wikimedia link, after my comments. That is an improvement, although minor. Thanks.--Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 01:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, thanks to whoever did that. Just H 02:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A corporate logo on every page. The times are a-changin' at Wikipedia.--Melburnian 02:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The above comment was brought to you by Coca Cola and Microsoft.... :-) Just H 03:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Virgin Unite logo and the "All donations received today will be matched by Virgin Unite" seems like some advertisement for Virgin. Many Wikipedian's are against ads. That logo does not need to be there.


Acknowledgements are different from Advertisements.--Randalllin 02:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Because of this, a charitable, knowledge-loving organization will get a bunch of attention and Wikipedia will get funding to continue. It's a win / win situation. --Zeality 03:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with that, the problem I have is trying to sneak it in up there, and the potential bias against Virgin's article now. If we can be open about this ad and the POV on the Virgin article, then fine, but it shouldn't be construed in any way that Virgin is the official whatever of Wikipedia. Just H 03:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
See the FAQ for a related topic; there is absolutely no official association between Wikimedia and any of the companies sponsoring matching donations that will affect or impact any content in any manner. It should be explicitly clear that Virgin is not related to Wikimedia in any way except for their generosity in giving us matching donations; which part do you think needs clarification? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand everything, but - say what you want - to me it still looks very much like an ad. I kinda know it kinda isn't so, but that's the way it looks like. Period. --Ouro 07:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I know that Wikipedia isn't endorsed by Virgin, and vice versa, but with the two logos right next to each other like that, it certainly might look that way to the casual observer... opinions? Dreaded Walrus 09:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What's bad is that the Virgin logo is inside the Virgin Unite logo. Does no one remember the Spanish fork? Hell, there's a WikiProject to show that the editors don't want things like this: Wikipedia:WikiProject No ads. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-28t11:37z

Keep Wikipedia free from commercials!

Appalling to say the least! Richard Branson and Wikifoundation should know better. Is this the first time Wikipedia has sanctioned a border-line commercial (or a "commercial message") on page 1? And - why didn't Virgin Unite accept to act as an anonymous contributor? Camptown 09:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Have they forgot about WikiProject No ads? Oh, I just saw the discussions above but IMO I still don't trust that Virgin logo. GizzaChat © 10:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm really concerned about this. The project relies 100% on volunteers, and suddenly a big corporation gets special treatment. The dollars received from the Virgin Group might well by a Pyrrhic victory for Wikipedia. -- Camptown 11:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What special treatment? If you want to match donations, I'm sure they will say "All donations received today will be matched by Camptown". Of course, any wikipedia article on you will have to establish notability as does the Virgin Unite article Nil Einne 14:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Zanimum 17:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternatives?

So people, if you're so appalled by corporation-related charities doing matching grants, I'm sure that you have a list of other organizations that offer matching. Come on, cough the list up. -- Zanimum 17:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Independence?

According to the foundation:

Will this affect Wikimedia's neutrality, now that money has been given by several companies?

No. We have not agreed and will not agree to any arrangement that requires us to change the content of the sites. We are committed to maintaining the neutrality of the sites and entrust the user community to ensure that these standards are upheld.

Which is why an article on "Virgin Unite" was mysteriously created yesterday, and is now being defended on the grounds that "it is poor manners to bite the hands that feed you"... yandman 10:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That was only one user and I agree it's an extremely poor argument and should be ignored. However it remains an open question as to whether the article should be kept. If believe the answer is no, then why don't you take part in the discussion with adequete explaination of why you feel it shouldn't be kept? The fact that they sponsored us and the article may have been created in response to that by persons unknown is equally a poor argument. Whatever the reason and sponsorship, the only question is whether we should keep the article in accordance to existing policy Nil Einne 14:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The article was created at 08:14, 27 December 2006, by User:Virgin United. I don't see what's mysterious about that. You do see what's ridiculous about applying the opinion of one user to the entire Wikimedia Foundation, right? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-12-28 15:41Z


And in no way should the fundraiser impact whether or not the article should be kept or any such editing questions about the article; we're confident that the community (you and I included) will treat this article like any other one and take it through the normal processes, when appropriate. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course it should have an effect. It is called a conflict of interest. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
And therefore you should be objecting, not to the ad, but to the fact that Wikimedia is taking Virgin Unite's money at all. But there's no non-trivial conflict of interest so long as the donation is one-time and we're not dependent on it, both of which are the case. ~~ N (t/c) 19:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
"It's not an ad. The closest analogy is a sponsorship message." — what on earth is the difference? They promise to pay money if Wikipedia promises to sport their logo for a day. This is a paid advertisement, pure and simple. I am not saying this is necessarily despicable, it's just a big step for Wikimedia, which used to be ad-free until today. Personally, I think it's a sad day. dab (𒁳) 16:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
No product and no service is even mentioned. Without that mention, there is no ad. This is much less ad-like than even the sponsorship messages Americans always hear on PBS and NPR. --mav 16:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
When companies pay to have an entire sports arena named after them, is that an advertisement? What did they pay for? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-12-28 18:15Z
In that case, their sponsorship is conditional on the stadium being named after them. There's no sign that that's the case here. Seriously, if you're that uncomfortable with TEH EVIL CORPORATIONS having anything to do with Wikipedia, it's not the logo you should be attacking; that doesn't give them any influence. You should be saying that the Foundation should reject their donations. ~~ N (t/c) 18:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
That ignores the rationalizing the board has offered so far. The board didn't elect to accept a large donation with an acknowledgement on the donor page...it prominently spammed every Wikipedia reader and editor with the VU logo, on every single page. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
But it's important to tell individuals that their donations will be matched, as it encourages donation. And once we're doing that, it'd look very strange not to say who's matching it. Other than your personal objection to seeing corporate logos (and, again, you can use the Dismiss button, or use your monobook.css to keep from ever seeing the sitenotice again), how does having the logo there harm anybody? (Hint: Just because Virgin wins doesn't mean someone else loses.) As I said, any influence Virgin gains is through the donation itself, unaffected by the logo. ~~ N (t/c) 19:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
That the donations will be matched by some "donor" is enough for people to know that it is matched, and opposition to the logo is not a "personal objection", and ability of registered users to dismiss the advertisement (for today), does not mean that the hundreds of thousands of anonymous readers do not still see the advertisement, all day. —Centrx→talk • 21:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am just saying, this is the first non-Wikimedia logo I see in non-encyclopedic context on Wikimedia webspace. That is a big deal. No, we shouldn't reject their donations, provided they are happy to give them without demanding their logo is shown. Arguments along the lines "it's not an ad, it's sponsorship" are just rationalizations. It's not the end of Wikipedia, but it's an important first. How bad exactly you think this is will depend on your general mentality. dab (𒁳) 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the first advert I have seen on Wikipedia (At least the first that I couldn't edit away as unencyclopedic). There's no question in my mind that it is an ad - money in exchange for publicity for the Virgin brand. A statement that Virgin Unite was matching donations might be acceptable but why the logo? Is this going to become a regular feature with anyone willing to donate enough money getting their logo on every page? Wikipedia is built by its users the servers etc are a necessary but tiny part of the work, it shouldn't be spoilt by advertising.IanOfNorwich 20:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why all the disparagement of beggars? If Wikipedia would stick to a humble position, such as begging, it would be one thing. Begging has a long and reputable history in some spiritual traditions. Apparently, NPOV stops outside of article space here (and doesn't always fare to well there, either). Whether it's beggars, "trolls", "sockpuppets" or "vandals" it seems insulting outsiders is the norm, rather than the exception at Wikipedia.
When a charity moves from begging to offering to assist donors with their commercial branding, the "thank you" becomes more of gratuity. Get used to it. No band of libertarians led by a die-hard libertarian will long resist the lure of commercial activity. Why not enjoy our liberty, right? In this project, it seems to be an article of faith most members have not accepted that one of the founders is determined to commercially exploit the project, whether through use of MediaWiki software and wiki experience to promote Wikia, or through a commercial liason with Amazon.com to make a search engine that spams results with Wikipedia articles and paid links. Did you really think your volunteer work was protected from commercial exploitation, and your leader was not ideologically a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist? Amicus Sparticus 08:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
what do you mean, "your leader"? See GFDL. I am not donating content to Wikimedia. I am releasing content under the GFDL. Anyone is equally entitled to try and "exploilt" GFDL'd content under the same terms, that's the entire point. The question is, does the community want to stoop to plastering the site with logos to buy more hardware and bandwith. Speaking strictly for me, I'd rather have a shoddy response time and occasional downtime, as we used to have in the past, than selling "sponsorships". dab (𒁳) 12:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
By "leader" I mean the chairman of the board of the foundation that hosts the pages you build with your GFDL donations. Anyone can exploit the GFDL content, but some are in a position to use power within the organization to enhance commercial appeal of the project. An arms-length commercial exploitation, such as if I started selling CDs of select, vetted Wikipedia articles is far different than an entreprise where a person who uses position or prestige within the organization to build machinery that the person is also actively seeking investments to commercially exploit, such as for the basis of a commercial search engine in partnership with a for-profit company, where results feature listings of the GFDL donations alongside paid advertisements. In the latter case, a person can't be sure an appearance of conflicted interests is not an actual conflict. Amicus Sparticus 19:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Bots gone wild...

Re:Teaching Bots The Difference Between Edits with Tildes And Edits That Don't Need Them

I was wondering if this was possible. I just tried to clean up the convo up there and it signed my name, screwing up the point of the edit. Just H 02:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the diff[4]. Just H 02:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
A -- generally means that it is a user comment. It is rarely used otherwise. --Ineffable3000 02:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Just H, you'll probably get a better response from the bot's operator/owner at User talk:Hagerman#Possible improvement rather than complaining here on Talk:MainPage. --PFHLai 06:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

US versus the Rest of the World

I'm curious on the balance between the US and the rest of the world on the current events section and how the consensus on that is determined. I heard about the Somalian conflict here first, I think the balance is pretty good, although sometimes it's a bit non-US biased when it comes to sports. Just H 02:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It is frequenrly US biased. If an international president dies, it doesn't get as much attention for example. --Ineffable3000 02:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, you have to remember this is the English speaking Wikipedia, and most users are either American, British (anywhere in UK), Australian, Canadian, etc. There is a good number of non-native English wikipedia contributors, but how many readers fall into that category? Put bluntly, the general English wikipedia reader is going to be more interested in events in those countries. That's not to say the international events are unnotable; it's just that your average reader won't care as much about foreign affairs as domestic ones. DoomsDay349 02:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
What about Augusto Pinochet? He got "as much attention" as President Ford. PullToOpenTalk 02:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The US doesn't compete in international sports nearly as much as in Europe and other nations (e.g. the Champions League, International Test Cricket and Heineken Cup (Rugby Union)), also The Premiership (the world's most watched sporting league and most lucrative football league) is filled with international players. Most sports reporting in the US is concerned with domestic competitions and is of little interest internationally. Jooler 02:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The Premiership is England only, and I can't believe it's more watched/profitable than the NFL with the Super Bowl.Just H 03:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
You seemed to have missed the point there. The teams in the Premiership are English, but over 50% of the players are from outside of the UK. [5] It is the world's most popular and most watched sporting league, followed worldwide by over a billion people. It is widely watched overseas, with matches being shown in 195 countries (from our article) [FYI There are only 192 countries in the UN]. Few people outside of the USA give a toss about the NFL. So while the NFL teams may individually be more profitable than their Premiership counterparts, the amount of money that can be made from the league by all parties has a lot more potential. Jooler 12:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Plus there's money from transfers to take into account, too. --Dreaded Walrus 12:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Ineffable, we're trying to do our best with keeping it neutral. What sort of American bias do you even see on ITN now? We had Augusto Pinochet and Saparmurat Niyazov up there, but no James Brown or Milton Friedman. Gerald Ford is up there right now, and that's about the only American thing on ITN, atm. Nishkid64 02:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It isn't perfect, but it's not too bad of a job in regards to neutrality. Just H 03:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
US bias is prevalent in, as well as the things that are included, but also the things that are rejected. Andre Agassi's retirement was on the main page, but Shane Warne's was removed. The death of Peter Brock was also removed from the main page. The Baseball World Series was on the main page (city based teams only from America - save for just one Candian team), and yet I doubt that the result of the Ashes (involving the Aus. national team vs. the English national team) - which has already been decided - will be deemed important enough.
I agree. It's very much biased towards Americans. Seriously, who outside the U.S. (other than a political science major) cares about an old president kicking the bucket? This place has become Wickamerica. 67.171.158.208 03:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, please. If Margaret Thatcher or Atal Bihari Vajpayee or Jiang Zemin or another former leader of a major nation died, they, too would be on ITN. —Cuiviénen 04:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, clearly we need to expunge Wikipedia of all things American. Unclean, unclean! 71.127.245.83 06:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The French, Dutch, Chinese, Japanese and Swedish Wikipedias currently have both Gerald Ford and James Brown in their ITN infobox. The German and Spanish sites have Ford. Are they US-centric too? – Anþony  talk  06:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, somewhere it was decided that only the biggest events for any sport would be included in ITN. Secondly, any US bias shouldn't be surprising given the fact that it has more than twice the population of Canada, the UK, New Zealand and Australia combined. This means that there are bound to be more US-related articles that can be placed on the main page. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 23:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the US politics are followed throughout the world, unlike most other national politics. But this worldwide interest is not valid for American sports, as in most countries, they are virtually unknown. Most non-USians know a bit about baseball and American football from Hollywood movies, but they don't know the rules and don't care about those competitions. bogdan 23:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
TD - There are over 1 billion people in India. The official language of that country is English and you will find that most newspapers etc are in English. You also forgot Ireland, South Africa and a multitude of other technology rich nations. Going by your logic we should see nothing but Indian stories on the front page. Bogdan also makes a good point. I'm sure Indians would much rather see information about The Ashes (Cricket) than The World Series...but it was nowhere to be seen on the front page. Snowbound 00:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. from English language "[India] has more people who speak or understand English than any other country". bogdan 00:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The ITN articles all come from those written at wikinews so we are reliant on what gets written there and generally speaking people only write about news events that are local to them. If theres a need to increase what being covered it because theres a need for a more diverse group of editors there. Gnangarra 02:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, not all come from Wikinews. (Check the reference section of individual wikiarticles for the many different sources.) Wikipedia & Wikinews are two independent projects. But, yes, Wikinews could use more 'local' editors in different parts of the world. So does Wikipedia, btw. --PFHLai 12:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Snowbound - I merely mentioned the nations that Doomsday mentioned above (with the exception of New Zealand). I'm just giving what may be the reason for the bias. Again, the World Series is considered the most important event for the sport of baseball. I know next to nothing about cricket, but I remember an international tournament being up there a while back. Is this Ashes the most important event in Cricket? If so nominate at the In the News Page. Either way no event is placed in ITN, unless its article has been significantly updated. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 16:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Donation Spikes over $200,000

Within a matter of seconds, the amount of money listed in the box at the top jumped over $200,000!. I checked the live list of donors, knowing it wasn't Virgin Unite, who was matching todays donations, because I don't think we had raised that much today. It says an anonymous person made over a 200,000 dollar donation. I really don't know why someone would anonymously donate that much, so is it possible that someone faked it (used a false credit card, etc.) or something? --(trying to get 1,000 edits in 1 month!) TeckWizTalkContribs@ 03:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

We must have a very generous donor, or a very mean person. DoomsDay349 03:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Or the check from the anonymous donor that had offered to match donations earlier in the week was cashed. Titoxd(?!?) 03:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
This donation is from the anonymous donor that was matching donations for a couple of days. It's not really possible for someone to fake the number anyway; the number only reflects charges that have been approved by the credit companies. --Cyde Weys 03:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this earlier today as well. The donation meter jumped from about 350k to 500k, and then moved back down eventually. Weird. (That guy's donation was $286,800.00!) Cheers, PullToOpenTalk 03:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I almost changed my mind, but then I figured Jimbo would send me a really good Christmas card next year...Just H 03:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Which proves that there are anonymous donors who match-donate without needing ads to gain commercial leverage. I bet Virgin never expected any one person to donate $200,000 at a time. It increases (doubles or more I guess) what they expected to get off with, in lieu of that ad. Serves them right.--Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 03:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep, it's become a rather costly product placement. :-) Just H 03:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The anonymous donor was specified in the sitenotice as well, it just said an anonymous friend. Also, I'm pretty sure Virgin won't be paying for this because 1) It was before 28th December UTC, 2) This was almost definitely a donation outside the agreement Nil Einne 14:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure Virgin will find a loophole in the agreement to avoid paying that amount. So whats the use of touting around that they are matching doantions of the day? 'Simple reason - It is not profitable to be charitable!' --Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 16:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
What loophole? The matching donation which just happened to be processed a few hours BEFORE Virgin's matching donation went up was clearly not part of the agreement and I don't think any resonable person would think it waS. Nil Einne 17:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Have you got some sort of vendetta against charity organizations? Cheers, PullToOpenTalk 03:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    I think he just has a vendetta against corporations pretending to be charity organizations, pull. Just H 03:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    Ditto. Thanks Just H. When one pays for an ad, one should admit it. --Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 16:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    I'm sure they appreciate any and all donations, as do we; they did not do this "to gain commercial leverage" - instead, they were interested in helping the Wikimedia Foundation and agreed to match donations for a certain time period. See the FAQ for more information. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    To be fair, I think it's quite clear that charities associated with organisations are in part intended for PR for the company. However this doesn't change the fact IMHO that these organisaties are still legitimate charities. Nor does it change the fact that the people associated with the charities almost definitely have some intention to act charitable for charitable/moral reasons. I personally don't like the way some people treat people like Bill Gates as God just because he's giving so much money away but it doesn't mean I deny his sincerity or the fact that the B&M G Foundation is a legitimate charity. I guess we should at least be glad the first named matching donor was a charity rather then simply an organisation so we only cover one issue at a time Nil Einne 14:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    If you believe Virgin Unite isn't a real charity, then I suggest you consider taking action in the UK. I believe UK law is resonably strict on charities and any charities have to actually be charities unlike the Netherlands where Stichting INGKA Foundation is registered which doesn't appear to be considered a legitimate charity by a number of sources. However I recommend you have your arse covered since accusing a charity of not actually being a charity would probably be considered libel in the UK if you didn't have good reason to suggest Virgin Unite wasn't a legitimate charity. Nil Einne 14:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    If Virgin Unite calls itself a charity - it is. Objection is on the ad on the main page. Is that governed by UK or US law?--Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 16:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    It's not an ad. And it's covered under both US and UK law. The foundation is based in the US and so are their servers. So they have to obey US law. Virgin Unite is based in the UK, they have to obey UK law. Their agreement and the acknowledgement didn't violate US & UK law in any way, so this is not an issue of the law... Nil Einne 17:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Some big checks and such got cashed, then there was some confusing adjustment of which bits were counted in the donation counter. I believe it's been sorted out by the boys in the office. --brion 04:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder when the "sponsored" by Microsoft banner will turn up. --Ezeu 05:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Soon! Trust me! May be under Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, but soon. He doesn't miss much. :-) --Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 15:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
All donations received today will be matched by Citizendium - The Wikipedia that noone will edit --Dreaded Walrus 07:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Well the foundation still reserves the right to reject any organisation. However, I would personally hope they don't reject Microsoft or Citizendium. There is no reason to. The only reason IMHO why they should reject a donor is if it would open up legal issues (e.g. the donor is an organisation or person considered associated with terrorism by some government). Tobacco and alcoholic product companies may open up some legal issues as well given tobacco and alcohol adversting restrictions in some countries. But companies like Exxon-Mobil and other controversial but not legally problematic companies should be accepted (although I doubt this would ever arise anyway). Nil Einne 15:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's not talk law. Virgin Vodka is a alcoholic drink produced by Virgin Drinks owned by Virgin Group. Virgin Wines is an internet Wine retailer. --Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 16:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear!! Let's rather have banner on the very top covering 1/8 of the page length depicting the Corporate (with charitable guise) which pays the best. What say? Well agreements signed in future will sure have something like that.--Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 16:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

However the acknowledgement is unlikely to be considered alcohol advertising in any country I know so it's irrelevant... My point was that certain acknowledgements could be construed as advertisments for alcohol or tobacco which are restricted in a number of countries Nil Einne 17:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the banner, the developers implemented the "dismiss" link to make sure that registered users would not have to be bothered by the SiteNotice if they didn't want to; although it will occasionally reappear if the SiteNotice is updated, each time the "dismiss" link is there for your convenience. In addition, while I understand your concerns about future notices, I can assure you that the Foundation will never condone of or approve any such "competitive bidding" with the intent to "advertise". We should be thankful that matching donations are being offered, and it (logically) means that the fundraiser will end twice as fast as if there were no matching donations. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, would you just rather the Foundation reject all corporate donations? Or just be ingrates and take the donation but say nothing about it? ~~ N (t/c) 18:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer the Foundation return to rejecting all corporate donations (specifically ones that require logo placement.) Matching sponsorship notices must be restricted to the existing donor pages, where no one (not even me) can reasonably object to them...and where they belong. Spamming the heading of every page is unacceptable. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 23:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is it unacceptable? --brion 06:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Because it is advertising (as opposed to an acknowledgement.) But hey, maybe it is just me, and (as you finally noticed on IRC) because I am an "asshole." The proverbial barn-door is open now for a multitude of advertisers to exploit now. The flimsy, pissant arguments about maintaining a NPOV go next. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 16:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fundraising

I suguest making a perment link on the main page where it says the "free" encyclopedia...linking free to ongoing fundraising...that way anyone who would like to contribute year round could...just a thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.158.133.194 (talk) 11:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

There is a link in the top-right corner of the screen linking to the donations page all year round. If you create an account and log in , you don't see it – Gurch 11:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

so only unregestered users can donate all year?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.158.133.194 (talk • contribs).

No, only unregistered users get the reminder in the corner all year round. :) --Dreaded Walrus 11:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. You'll notice there's also a "Donations" link in the sidebar (underneath "Contact Wikipedia"). That's visible to everyone, all the time – Gurch 11:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
"Free" in that context doesn't mean at no cost, it's free as in liberty. So a link to the donations page would be out of context. Free as in beer verses Free as in liberty. --Monotonehell 12:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Spenditure of the funds?

I'm interested in what will be bought with 1,5 MIL USD. I once found a map of Wikipedias servers. Are these upgraded. Please tell me the details. Teemu Ruskeepää 15:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Try taking a look at the FAQ linked aboved... Nil Einne 15:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't there. Just question without answers. Teemu Ruskeepää 15:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising_FAQ#Wikipedia_is_cool.21_I.27ll_give_you_some_money.__But_what_will_it_be_used_for.3F — BRIAN0918 • 2006-12-28 15:36Z
i.e."The money will be used for the continued operation and improvement of Wikimedia projects. This includes hardware, bandwidth, staff, events like Wikimania, and other expenses. A successful fundraiser will mean both being able to continue and expand what we are currently doing, and to have a secure financial base for the future." RHB 15:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
You're still missing what will be bought. 2005-2006 Wikiprojects used 430000 USD for hardware. What hardware is going to bought this year? It can't be that difficult. Teemu Ruskeepää 16:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll tell you what will be bought. We will buy additional high end servers to host ads of our generous corporate donors. (Please ignore if out of context). :)--Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 16:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
You may be interested in this article, from a few weeks ago, from the Signpost (which I wrote) on the financial audit and management letter. While I can't provide the exact specifics of what equipment was bought, etc., I can assure you that the money is being used to make sure that the exponential growth of all the projects doesn't collapse the technical equipment. (In other words, new servers will have to be bought, developers, technical, and administrative staff paid, and equipment upgraded so that we don't experience common site-downages like we did last year.) It should also be noted that in the audit, the Foundation used a five-year depreciation cycle, instead of a standard three-year depreciation, meaning that the technical equipment is depreciating faster than what was showed in the audit. I hope this answers your question. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)According to the financial statement, the expenditure on computer hardware was US$42k in 2004, $141k in 2005 and $426k in 2006, while the numbers for other expenses were $23K, $177k, and $791k. (My, how the baby has grown.) A simple extrapolation of those numbers, taking into account continued growth, puts the total needed way above $1.5 mil, which I assume will be filled in by regular year-round donations. If you want an itemized list of future expenditures, such as exact number of servers, for the coming year beyond what can be extrapolated from the financial report, I don't think any organization - for-profit, non-profit or government - can do that credibly. Many have trouble accounting for their past expenditures. - BanyanTree 16:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

MainPage Column Width

The Main Page is divided in the ratio 2:1 from left to right instead of 1:1. So, the shape of the page is very bad especially the Did you know section. I viewed it using Firefox 2 and Internet Explorer under Windows XP. Please save the Main Page. --Meno25 15:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Still unchanged...is everyone taking a break?--cloviz 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Ummmm, I'm being blind on the line to fix -- Tawker 17:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Two lines after <!-- End of header section / beginning of left-column --> for the left column (change 55 to 50) then the same for right column (change 45 to 50). --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
No it's because of DYK. I added that yesterday but saw what happened so I removed it. I'm fixing it now. Nishkid64 18:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, fixed now. Nishkid64 18:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it.

--Meno25 19:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the left column is supposed to be slightly wider than the right column (55:45) as it contains more text. The difference wasn't meant to be quite as big as it was, though; that was a result of too much text in Did you Know, I think – Gurch 20:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there's a DYK about the longest place-name in the United States. Apparently, it was too long for the Main Page, so I had to shorten it. Nishkid64 20:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
"Did you know... that a lake in the US which is often touted as having the longest name is too big to fit on the front page." ;) --Monotonehell 23:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL! --PFHLai 12:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/i/Talk%7EMain_Page_Archive_86_54b8.html"