Talk:Main Page

FUCK U PEOPLE AT WIKIPEDIA U FUCKING BIASED SHITS WHO HAVE NO FUCKING MORALS AND RESPECT U BASTARDS U WILL SUFFER ONE DAY FOR MISLEADING PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

u FUCKING WELL CLAIM TO BE NEUTRAL HAHAHAHAHA WAT A FUKING JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!! HOW CAN U BE NEUTRAL WHEN U ADOPT TERMS USED BY SWINES LIKE THE US SUCH AS ISLAMIC TERRORISTS I MEAN WHAT THE FUCK IF U WANA BE NEUTRAL THEN SHOW BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY WHY DONT U USE TERMS FROM BOTH SIDES., THOSE SO CALLED TERRORISTS REGARD AMERICA AS AN OPPRESSIVE TERRORIST STATE. Y THE FUCK WONT U PUT SUCH STUFFF. IT WOULD BE FINE IF U HAD BOTH MUSLIM TERRORIST AND US TERRORIST BUT U ONLY HAVE ONE. THATS CALLED BEING BIASED!!!!!!!!!!!!! FUK U FUK U

General discussion

NORWAY

I'm not really complaining about this but the main Page does seem to have an awful lot about Norway on it recently. It's a lovely country and the people are even nicer, but I wonder whether it would be helpful to do stuff about other countries as well. ( This comment is not available in Nyorsk.)93.97.194.138 (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Currently we have only one Norway-related item on Main Page, in the DYK section. And I am pretty sure we had a lot more U.S. items than Norwegian ones. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the OP doesn't know the difference between Sweden and Norway? Nil Einne (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay being countryless at ITN may have gone some way towards this. --candle•wicke 14:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I check this page every few days to see if there's anyone complaining about a geographic bias on the main page. For some reason I find it amusing when people get their panties in a twist over which country front page content is about. 198.209.225.230 (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Norway is even complaining about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at the Durban Review Conference. --candle•wicke 17:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

OMFG we have an item on Norway on SA/OTD now. Help, help!!! Seriously though, looking at Wikipedia:Recent additions it looks like we have had quite a few Norwegian items (search for Norw) over the past few weeks, I'm guessing someone (or a group) with an interest in Norway has been hard at work in Norway related new articles so we've a spate of nominations which have been spread out as they should. This happens all the time and of course we seem to get a protest when it does, sigh... Nil Einne (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Another excellent piece about Norway on the front page today. As I said in my first observation, I'm not really complaining about this because the individual items have usually been interesting. In fact it is quite reassuring to know that every day I wake up I am going to learn something about Norway that I didn't know before. The Norgeophiles who have produced these pieces are to be congratulated not criticised. But maybe we could get somebody from Denmark or Sweden to write something to add a little variety93.97.194.138 (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, this is a wiki. So if you don't like what's on the main page, write something and nom it for ITN or DYK or TFA. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I am of half-Norwegian descent, I have to say that today's Norwegian entry about the Krag-Jørgensen rifle strikes me as excessively obscure. I know some Wikipedians think obscurity is what Wiki is all about. I have a different view. It seems to me that Nguyen Van Thieu's flight from Saigon in 1975, for just one possible example, is of far more interest.

Having said that, I wish to report that my paternal grandmother always told my dad that "the Norwegians are the finest people in the world."

Sca (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As the person who first raised the issue of Noregocentricity, I should like to endorse your paternal grandmother's view. Or more precisely, that I have never met any finer people. I'm not really complaining about this, but has anybody else noticed that we have had a lot of items about of the amount of Norwegian coverage on the discussion page recently?

No. --candle•wicke 17:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

i can assure u the pigs got nothing to do with norway :) Ashishg55 (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the obscurity issue. Todays Norway-related DYK-blurb is really obscure. I'm Norwegian, and it's a bit cheesy to propagate so much trivia about Norway. 85.200.193.67 (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, millions of English speakers have been wondering for years just who the Norwegian editor of Verdens litteraturhistorie was. Thanks to today's DYK entry, we know at last.

Now, who was his assistant, and what was his mother's maiden name? Also, what model of Volvo did he drive? And speaking of cheesy — did he really like gammelost, or did he only pretend to like it?

Sca (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really complaining about this, but I can't see anything about Norway on the Main Page today. Is there a problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.162.100 (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What? No Norwegian entries today? Two days in a row? Det gjør vondt! Sca (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am told that there WAS a Norwegian entry but it has been removed from Wikipedia. The link was http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=FC+Dammers&go=Go and it concerned a team aiming to become the second most successful team in its town. Regrettably, I did not notice this when I commented on the lack of any Norgerama yesterday. I apologise for any concern this may have caused. I am pleased to see that today's entry on Amund B. Larsen maintains the standards of broad general interest which we now associate with Norwaycentric articles on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.138 (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Drammen FK? --Rettetast (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite right! I am sure we all wish them well in the demanding task they have set themselves. Excellent piece on Carl Platou today, complete with link to his first cousing once removed.It only goes to prove that Andy Warhol was right when he said that every Norwegian has the right to be on Wikipedia for 15 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.138 (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC) When I awoke there was nothing about Norway on the main page and for a moment I felt a deep sadness. But thanks to Andreas Claussen and his famous role as a state concillor, that fear has gone away. Well done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.162.100 (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Today's entry on the Lithuanian Special Operations Force is quite interesting. I have a suggestion: How about a series of Lithuania entries to fill the vacuum left by the apparent demise of the Norway series? (Second article could be on famed Lithuanian cuisine, perhaps starting with Cepelinai.) Such a series would go far to relive our disappointment over the lack of Norway entries in recent days.

Sca (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Norway has not let us down today. The piece on Øvre Richter Frich tells me at least as much as I want to know about this great writer. To be fair, I do not believe there was ever a full 24 hour period when the DYK section was entirely devoid of any Norwegian material, though I am sure there is still much to learn. For example, I do not believe we have ever had had a full list of Norwegian entries to the Eurovision song contest, full lyrics (in English) and names of cmposers together with links to first cousins once remoed if appropriate. So there is much to be done before we move on to the equally important matter of Lithuania. However, a serious point having raised the issue in the first place. I have come to really enjoy the pieces about Norway and would be genuinely disappointed if one day there turned out not to be one. That is because they are nice pieces written about (mostly) nice people or are unflinching ion their treatment of bad people. But what if they were about some less benign topic? What if a group were producing pieces at such a rate that the automatic selection process gave them continuing prominence but they were about something much less benign? Sometimes just giving prominence to an issue introduces a bias to believiong that issue is important. Is there/should there be a mechanism for regulating that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.138 (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope you're all sitting down before you read this... but I was wandering by the nominations page and I think one of the future Norway DYKs has run into some bother!!! There might soon be an entire day of Norwayless DYKs!!! But don't worry!!! CALM DOWN!!! My natural reaction was to immediately begin preparing for this possibility although I'm sure it can be fixed as there is some time left!!! I'm currently trying to contact Norwegian security services and medical teams across the world to ensure they're all on stand-by in the event of this disaster actually occurring!!! The main thing is not to panic!!! We're all in this together!!! We can cope!!! Our Lithuanian editorial team are on stand-by to assist although, as we all know, Lithuania simply isn't Norway... :( --candle•wicke 15:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Normal service has been resumed on the Norse front I am glad to see. Please don't let the interruption happen again. I understand the enormous amount of work needed to maintain the quality of the Norway-centred articles but it is well worth it. The world is rapidly becoming extremely well informed about many Norwegian personalities who have been unaccountably ignored. There's a lot more to it than Vikings, Ibsen and Greig.

If you look closely, you'll find that today's featured article on Ælfheah of Canterbury is actually a Norway entry. Sca (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You might also notice an astonishing bias in favour of the English south-east on the Main Page today; TFP is this lovely panoramic view of the Thames. --candle•wicke 21:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Other languages

Hello. I notice that on the list of worldwide Main Pages - the one that appears on the left of the monitor - it only gives wiki.riteme.site/wiki/ and not wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Main Page, for example. Could someone unprotect the page so that I could correct it?--Pokémaniac Thomas (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's because "main page" is English and other language Wikipedias will have the URL for their main page in that language. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to add what their equivilent is. Like it is [ar.wikipedia.org/wiki%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A9], for example.--Pokémaniac Thomas (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

But there's no point - that's just many (unintelligible) extra characters cluttering up the edit box that serve no purpose. They both point to the same page. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 21:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That would also store up problems if other languages decided to move their main pages (such as the perennial suggestions to move ours to Portal:Main Page). No real pros, several cons, not necessary. Modest Genius ^talk 23:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't you love it when a (now banned) sockpuppet of a banned user asks for a critical page to be unprotected? He'd be "more than happy" to help, really. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, now... let's AGF on this. --candle•wicke 13:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu

From the wording of the section, it sounds like there actually is a problem in the US just like mexico, even though there's only 8 people infected in the states and they have recovered. --Ssteiner209 (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You should let them know at WT:ITN. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Rephrased. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Where in Hell are you getting the figures being claimed in the headline?? CNN as of Noon, PDT is reporting 73 CONFIRMED cases worldwide, with about 2000 reported in Mexico, a far cry from the number given here. Again, the LOWEST figure is what "at least" means! In this case, the LOWEST number confirmed (which the current CNN article does not give, only "as many as 103 deaths in Mexico". We have this same trouble EVERYTIME multiple deaths are reported- someone posting the headlines does not understand (or care) what "at least" means. Such REPEATED sloppiness really hurts Wikipedia's reliability. CFLeon (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Main Page gets its figures from this article. That article gets its figures from this CNN report and this AP report. I didn't find your CNN report (so where in bleep are you getting your figures?). If it exists, the article's talk page would be a better place to discuss which report is the most reliable. Art LaPella (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As of 6pm PDT, the CNN report has been updated to the 149 figure (unconfirmed) with only 81 cases confirmed worldwide, but at the time that I posted (not to mention the time that the Wikipedia headline would have been posted), my figure was the one being used. But whatever # is current still does't change my point (which you ignored), which is that by using the term "at least", Wikip is claiming that 149 is the smallest confirmed figure, which in actually it's the LARGEST REPORTED UNCONFIRMED figure, with CONFIRMED #s being MUCH smaller. (I still haven't found the # of CONFIRMED deaths on CNN, and I don't have the time tonight to do any more intensive search.) And it is pertinent to THIS page when Wikip is spreading inaccurate figures on the gateway page. CFLeon (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the top of this page states: "The main page usually defers to supporting pages when there is disagreement, so it is best to achieve consensus and make any necessary changes there first." Admittedly the article doesn't say "at least", but that phrase does allow for a delay in getting the Main Page to match the supporting article. Art LaPella (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that "at least" has been removed, I don't have a complaint. Just to be clear, I don't mind what figure is used (in a week, we may see 500 deaths); my complaint is the intellectual and journalistic dishonesty of taking the LARGEST figure being mentioned and then claiming that it is the SMALLEST. To me that practice smacks of Tabloid Journalism or PR Propaganda. CFLeon (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The old photo of the two masked Mexican cops (who aren't getting married in Sweden, after all) should be replaced by B00526-Swine-flu.png or some such image of A(N1H1). The epidemic has spread far beyond Mexico. kencf0618 (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Zuma didn't Lose the Election

Hi, the report on the South African election highlights in bold the word "loses" giving anyone hastily glancing at this the impression the ANC lost the election, when really they won. The report deserves greater accuracy in this respect.Gallador (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, "anyone hastily glancing" should consider reading it again. The line on ITN didn't say who lost the election -- the word "election" is not even in the sentence. Zuma's party lost its parliamentary supermajority and that's accurate. BTW, for next time, please consider using WP:ITN/C or WP:ERRORS as explained at the top of this talkpage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I second Gallador's comment. While technically accurate, this statement indeed needs to be read twice because the first interpretation that comes to mind is wrong. In any case this is not in line with the way other elections' results are reported. 86.70.119.250 (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

250th birthday?

April 27: 250th birthday of [...] Mary Wollstonecraft.

Given that Wollstonecraft died in 1797 according to the article about her, shouldn't this read "250th anniversary of the birth of [...] Mary Wollstonecraft"? — 217.46.147.13 (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. For future reference, these sorts of comments are more noticeable if they are made at WP:ERRORS. Bencherlite^Talk 16:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Most people would be able to link the fact it says 250th with the fact they died.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Whee, bias!

Wollstonecraft features in TFA and OTD, yeah, I get that... and the Nameless Book mentioned in DYK was probably written by a woman and features an overview of prominent female authors... and Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir is ITN... I think I detect a bias toward influential women. Let's get some obscure, non-notable men up on the Main Page to counter this bias! I volunteer to be featured myself, as a wholly unimportant anonymous contributor, if no one else will step forth. Viva le rabble! 168.9.120.8 (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That widely recognized manufacturer of boots and saddles in rural Dickens, Texas, Charles Weldon Cannon, known as Tooter Cannon, (presently at DYK) ought to go at least some of the way to countering this utterly earth-shattering revelation. :) --candle•wicke 18:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Then there's that guy, Antonio Bastardo, (also at DYK) who we all know for... uh... --candle•wicke 18:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Surviving elementary school? --86.159.27.165 (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Better tone down all this Mexican stuff when we're at it. TFP and a prime spot on ITN? Never! :) --candle•wicke 22:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I quite like today's Norwegian DYK... :) --candle•wicke 03:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Technical problem with featured article?

There seems to be some technical problem, as no one has objected today to the use of the term "Association football" in the featured article. There are nineteen archived pages of discussion of this article, mainly about that subject. Have they died in vain? Football is the name used by the rest of the world, while Americans ....(continued page 94) Michael of Lucan (talk) 09:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The main page takes its cue from the article. If you want it to change, you should go to that article's talk page. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if you might take a cue from reading the following article - Joke. Next time I'll add the smiley. Michael of Lucan (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for puerile jokes. This is for discussion of the Main Page. You have a userpage for jokes. Danthemankhan 12:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Insulting a comment as puerile is contrary to the principles of adult discussion, and possibly self-referential.

You do me an injustice. I suggest you read back and see what happens every time this subject is mentioned. It is no coincidence that there are 19 pages of archived comments and a FAQs on the talk page for the article. I may have pre-empted another two pages here. Michael of Lucan (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I thought it was funny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.162.100 (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Michael of Lucan's right... there must be some problem where users on the North American continent can't post errors... it's a catastrophe! 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Michael. Something is seriously amiss when Norway and Lithuania are getting more coverage on this page than the United States. Is today a public holiday there? But then that would surely give more people more free time... --candle•wicke 15:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

...because people in the USA know very little about US topics and a great deal about Norwegian topics? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic points, maybe tomorrow we can featureUniform (soccer)147.72.72.2 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Very funny. I well remember the angst over the name of that article. Ugh. --Dweller (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've actually never heard it called that before... it seems an extremely unusual use of the word "uniform". Thanks for telling me. :) --candle•wicke 20:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to the original point - the name of the article Association football --Dweller (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is technically a technical problem; but, the featured article for today and yesterday is/was just, well, dumb. I mean, this stuff is obscure minutia in the extreme. Who the hell selects this crap? Can they be sacked?

Finnbjorn (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Try telling that to the editors who worked to get these articles to FA status. User:Raul654 makes the final decision. Also see this. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe this issue is raised time and time again and I really don't think this user fully understands the process of WP:Featured articles and WP:Today's featured article... --candle•wicke 09:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Chopin

Of course, one must love Chopin. However, today's DYK entry on his Nocturnes Op. 37 seems contradictory: If these compositions “act as an aphrodisiac," wouldn't that tend to stimulate the libido, rather than “comfort” said impulse?

Sca (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think "comfort" here means "stimulate an underused libido", i.e. women could get from Chopin the "comfort" they couldn't get from their uncaring husbands. That's how I read it, anyway. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess if one broadens one's concept of libido to refer generally to the creative impulse, that makes sense. I was thinking of it more narrowly in terms of sexuality, i.e. concupiscence.

Sca (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Request Edit

Sorry, if I'm doing this wrong. Learning as I go. The number of confirmed deaths due to swine flu as of today according to the WHO is 7, not 152.[1] Could someone please change this?Jcblackmon (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Future requests for change to Main Page content can be brought to WP:ERRORS where they may be noticed sooner... --candle•wicke 21:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Outwith Mexico maybe --86.148.187.16 (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If you mean a new ITN, things have been a bit slow but I think enough people have died today in Azerbaijan and the Netherlands so a new one will be along soon enough... :) --candle•wicke 21:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

BREASTS?! ON THE MAIN PAGE!

Where is the decency in this world?! If I don't die from kissing all these pigs, the shock of seeing those spaniel's ears is sure to finish me off! Surely a cross section of a bra or a blurry purple image of a bra will do? I'm distraught here ... think about the children ... and the kittens! (BTW, "Bra" in German is "Büstenhalter", literally "Bust holder" ... easily my favourite translation EVER!) --LookingYourBest (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you referring to? It's possible all you saw was a little image vandalism. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

THIS was in the DYK section! Horror!;

*Gags*

--LookingYourBest (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit partial to her Elvis quiff though ... hmmmm! --LookingYourBest (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• The US Patent Office should be ashamed of itself, publishing this smut - though perhaps it was just an honest boob, and they deserve our full (underwired) support. I don't want to make a tit of myself, but I felt I had to get that off my chest. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

/*claps* You racked up some points there! --LookingYourBest (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

We had better nip this in the bud. Agathman (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't be crazy, after all, wikipedia is nork censored! --LookingYourBest (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

well exuse me

i dont really think thatthere should be disscoshions because there are strangers that lie about there age —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.183.130 (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh well. Not much we can do about that except assume honesty. --candle•wicke 13:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Er... what? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't go to that disco either! There seems to be a lot of people that lie about their names here too ... either that, or there are a lot of cruel parents in this world! --LookingYourBest (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)