National variations of the English language have been extensively discussed previously: Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety of English. While Wikipedia strives to use language common to all English varieties , some spelling, grammar, or terminology may differ or be absent in a reader's preferred variety. Refer to the relevant style guide on national varieties of English and see a comparison of American and British English.

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

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 03:55 on 12 November 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Olaf Scholz

• The German ruling coalition (Chancellor Olaf Scholz pictured) collapses over disagreements on economic policies.

The word "collapses" seems too strong as the linked article, 2024 German government crisis, does not use it. What it actually says is "...FDP effectively moved into the opposition, rendering the current coalition a two-party minority government." So, there's still a coalition but it has lost one of its members and so will continue as a minority government for now. Scholz is negotiating what happens next and it seems to be too soon to say exactly what that will be. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, I'm not even sure why this is in ITN given that the government is still very much in place. There will presumably be elections soon and we should post then.

  Also, when I first read this I thought it was Scholz himself who had collapsed. It's a poorly worded hook, given the presence of the photo caption in the middle, making it look like the Chancellor has had a mishap.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, I'm not even sure why this is in ITN ...: Met WP:ITNSIGNIF:

  It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits

  —Bagumba (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the first two sources at the ITNC nom were "Scholz sets stage for German snap election as government collapses" and "Germany’s Coalition Collapses, Leaving the Government Teetering".—Bagumba (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are news headlines which, per WP:HEADLINE, tend to use "exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers". And note that those examples are contradictory – one says the "government collapses" while the other says "government teetering". These are metaphors but these can be confusing when we are blurbing actual physical collapses too such as the recent canopy collapse. We should have a more precise description using the encyclopedic language of the article rather than the journalistic hyperbole of the news headlines. In this case, the finance minister was dismissed and his party left the governing coalition. A vote of confidence is now expected but hasn't been scheduled. So, the blurb might be:

* German chancellor Olaf Scholz (pictured) dismisses his finance minister and the resulting resignations leave his coalition without a majority.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to a gross error that will get resolved here. Since it appears to be "major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates" (Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Suggesting_updates), the ITNC nom seems like the best venue to gain consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Ger. Wiki's ITN blurb translates as: "After the failure of the ... coalition, the FDP leaves the German federal government and as a result the cabinet of Chancellor Olaf Scholz is reshuffled." -- Sca (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Re Teniky, not sure if this is an "error" per se, but "an enigmatic ancient site deep in Madagascar may have been built by Zoroastrians?" seems to be veering dangerously close to "giant lines in Peru may have been landing strips for ancient alien spacecraft?". I'm sure it will get lots of views but at what point do we draw the line about airing dubious hypotheses? Have opened a discussion at Talk:Teniky#Pseudoarchaeology?. I T B F 📢 18:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 1932 – "... officially resumed fighting the Emu War after their prior withdrawal". - Emu war appeared as the bold link on November 2 (and nearly again on November 8). JennyOz (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good gravy, not the emus again...replaced with Exploding whale. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 1944 – "... sank the German battleship Tirpitz on the ninth attempt..." - I cannot find in either bolded article where Operation Catechism was the "ninth attempt"? And according to the unlinked List of Allied attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz there were many more than nine attempts. Swap piped to simply to 'during Operation Catechism '? JennyOz (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. If anyone can think of a better way of wording it, be my guest. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 1956 – Suez Crisis: During an invasion of Rafah, Israeli soldiers shot and killed almost 111 Palestinian refugees and local inhabitants. - Not sure why "almost"? JennyOz (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "an estimated 111". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• We can add "(pictured)" after Kublai Khan in the blurb. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Schwede66 14:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates#ITN candidates for May 28

How are we going ot handle that... I know this shoudl be in at ITN... but it'll spill over here so yah... Just wondering because theres going to be so much surrounding when that guy is announced the winner.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No massive arguments on here so far.....Willski72 (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should say "incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" rather than just "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad"? -93.97.122.93 (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could always say it is not accepted... since thatas what it is--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to go into opinions and what who thinks what of what on the main page. It's a single title to announce the main update to the article- in this case, the fact that Ahmadinejad won the election. J Milburn (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So they say.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the Iranian election commission says that Ahmadinejad won and that is precisely what our tagline says as well - Dumelow (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those rioters... a number of news outelts and many others disagree with the,--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do, but the point that I was trying to make was that we don't simply state that he won but it just says that the election commission says that he won. That way we avoid any possible POV statements, if it later turns out to be electoral fraud then the tagline can be changed (it would be much worse if we insinuated that it was not a legitimate election and it turned out that there was nothing wrong about it) - Dumelow (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're already being a little suspicious of them. Normally, we would just state who won, not say who said who won. J Milburn (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Given how hotly contested things appear to be, perhaps it would be more NPOV not to have Wikipedia annonce that Ahmadinejad won, but rather simply state that the Islamic Republic News Agency has declared that Ahmadinejad won.

The current blurb mentions protests and allegations. I would say that is NPOV enough. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Wikipedia knows that the results announce by Khamenei and the Islamic Republic News Agency are accurate, and the demonstrators are wrong and the allegations of fraud are false? Wikipedia has first hand knowledge of this? If not, Wikipedia should report that so and so announced such a thing, not that such a thing is the fact. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't declare the winners, the electoral commission does. What they say is as good as right until it is proven wrong. J Milburn (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Wikipedia should say that the electoral commission has announced such and such a result. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the choice for today's featured article inappropriate. I personally do not want to read about thermometers in rectums. If I would want, I'd look up a page likely to contain these elements. But I disliked having it pushed into my face by putting it on the main page. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really comparing David Morse to a rectal thermometer? howcheng {chat} 18:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CENSOR YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 18:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with anything? I did not say these words should not be in an article (the subject of WP:CENSOR). I said that this article should perhaps not have been chosen for the main page. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bit harsh on David Morse that isnt it? Comparing him to a rectal thermometer! He's not my favourite man either but still, steady on!Willski72 (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O, would you all please be serious! :) Debresser (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

putting him inside someone's rectum to take temperature... *shrugs* that is one disturbing image Ashishg55 (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do hate to be pedantic (...nah who am I kidding!), but I think the correct word you were looking for, to describe the article in question, was distasteful --Daviessimo (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. That must have been because of those few percents I fell short of the full 100 on my final exams. :) Debresser (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please God tell me this is a joke... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, if it was a joke, it would go, "What's wrong with him, nurse?" "He's got a thermometer up his ass, doctor." "Eh, that's rectum, nurse." "Rectum? Damn near killed him."^[1] Michael of Lucan (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.. I'm going to give that 6/10. I had to deduct marks because is was quite obviously not original work --Daviessimo (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And please keep G-d out of any discussion involving thermometers, recta, and David Morse. :) Debresser (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6/10! Thats a bit harsh isnt it? OK its not the best joke in the world but come on! A 7 perphaps? It might not seem very different but there is a definite phsycological effect. If you give him a 7 your encouraging him to try again, if you give him a 6 you're letting him down gently!Willski72 (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A doctor is shopping. He's at the check-out, and needs to sign the check. He pulls his pen from his pocket, only to find it's a rectal thermometer. "That's just great" he says, "some asshole's got my pen." Contributions/82.33.48.96 (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Daviessimo, but on Wikipedia we must be consistent. No original research, remember? That goes for jokes too, surely? ;) Michael of Lucan (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well can you cite a reliable source for that joke? --Daviessimo (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am seriously considering to remove all jokes from this post. ;) You are clouding the subject. Debresser (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the second one. Bravo 82.33.48.96. --candle•wicke 01:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the second one is better. I give that an 8 out of 10. I wasnt roaring with laughter but it was funny nevertheless!. Also who put "citation needed" at the end of Michael of Lucan's joke! I mean come on!Willski72 (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He brought the issue to my attention. I'm afraid that per WP:OR it needs to be referenced or I will have to remove it. The key issue here is that he has to prove that this isn't a case of his own first hand experience with rectal thermometers :) --Daviessimo (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the CEO of Rectum PLC I can confirm that this customer satisfaction story is published on our website. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Warning! Previous sentence may be untrue![reply]

My deepest apologies, Daviessimo. Cite is http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rectum%2C%20damn%20near%20killed%20him! Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thats much better --Daviessimo (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do I get 7/10 now? Michael of Lucan (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you do --Daviessimo (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd give him both 8 and 2. 8 for the actual joke but 2 for the theft. --candle•wicke 17:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bit harsh on him that isnt it? Im not a fan of people who steal jokes but still! 2 for crying out loud!Willski72 (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the joke is a serious matter however. Points must be deducted when the subject matter involves the insertion of long, cold, hard items of various misuse into the rectum. It may be the typical chatter of doctors over their elevenses but many talk page browsers might rather not be reminded. We must remember these when we talk among ourselves - look at them all, cowering in the corner, haunted by... oh, one of them has just fainted... --candle•wicke 21:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am never going to see a doctor again!!!Willski72 (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That won't do! If it spreads you'll put them all out of business! I don't want to have to give my precious pennies and cents to homeless street doctors! --candle•wicke 22:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you get to be my age, [We who are old, O so old, Thousands of years, thousands of years if all were told] you will realise that jokes are like sex positions - there are no new ones. Only new people who have not yet experienced them ... and in each case a lot of groaning and some laughter. :0 Michael of Lucan (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the implication of that statement that doctors have been placing rectal thermometers in unsuspecting patient's 'nether regions' for thousands of years? --Daviessimo (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We of the Illuminati have been doing this for thousands of years. Recently, we have begun to use Illuminati-trained "doctors" and "nurses" to implement our plans. Michael of Lucan (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, from habit I added the usual fnords to my previous message. Can you see it now? Michael of Lucan (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was really tough back when all they had were Galileo thermometers. APL (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OMG I CAN SEE THE FNORDS!! howcheng {chat} 21:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you remember that? --candle•wicke 19:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Galileo, stealing everybody's ideas! That was mine! It should be the Willski thermometer! I remember people would complain quite a lot back in the day but i said to them, "If you think this is bad you should just wait until they get them rectal thermometers." At that point they would normally shudder and stop complaining....Willski72 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was worried reading up to this point that the Willski thermometer was used for testing rectal temperature, but thankfully, it does not appear so.04redsox07 (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No no, although i was asked to make a rectal thermometer i declined to be a part of such a horrific creation.Willski72 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

I think the phrase "strategic victory" is wrong in describing the Battle of Quatre Bras. The battle was a tactical victory for the French forces, but had no strategic significance because it was simply a preparation for the Battle of Waterloo, which they lost. Quatre Bras did not succeed in splitting the British and Prussian forces in a way which would have allowed Napoleon to defeat the separately, since Prussian troops arrived at Waterloo in time to decide the outcome. 93.97.194.138 (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an area in which I specialise, but I would question your view. On the face of it, it is correct to call it a strategic victory, not merely a local tactical affair. It had a positive impact on the progress of a wider campaign, as the French had intended. That wider campaign failed to carry through Bonaparte's strategic intent, as ultimately the opposing armies were not separated and destroyed as planned. However, it is reasonable to call Quatre Bras itself a strategic victory, since it achieved its strategic purpose. Michael of Lucan (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, this is irrelevant for the main page as Battle of Quatre Bras says it's a "French strategic victory". If you dispute this, you should take it to the article since the main page always defers to articles. Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant to make that point first, before commenting. Michael of Lucan (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't listen to him - (he steals jokes) Hush! --candle•wicke 21:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean because I had the 'strategic victory' in this discussion? Nil Einne (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two pages that I believe should never be protected. This one, and Wikipedia. Why? To encourage participation. What fun is it to have the two pages everyone looks at first be protected? How about utilizing the form of protection used on WP:Introduction, where the page can be edited but not the content, and use a bot to clear out all edits? 199.125.109.102 (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the most visible and highly visited page on Wikipedia, the Main Page is permanently protected as a result of excessive repeated vandalism. The other reason is that it keeps our welcome mat clean so it gives new users a decent looking impression – free from any shock-value word, phrase or image that would offend almost every person in the English-speaking world. Without protection, it would be safe to say it would be vandalised at a high exponentially rate of speed that it would be realistically impossible for any bot to keep up.

As for the Wikipedia article, it is only semi-protected for reasons you should ask the protecting administrator or ask at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection as outlined at Wikipedia:Protection policy. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are 86,400 seconds in the day and on the 17th June the Wikipedia article was viewed 49,600 times, or once every 1.7 seconds. Which means that it is a high profile target for vandals, and although the slogan is "Anyone can edit" that comes with a few caveats, one of which is that if a page is being viewed every 1.7 seconds we would be fools to open that page up to vandals. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like more and more pages are being protected. I'm sure we can all agree on the majority of these protections, but it seems like more pages are being protected than should be. Also it seems like some of these pages were discussed to be protected for a shirt period, yet end up protected for a much longer period.69.129.145.153 (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it seems like more pages are being protected it is because more people are vandalising pages and reverted vandalism all day stops editors from being able to make good contributions. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for a discussion of Wikipedia's protection policy. Try WP:VPP. Algebraist 22:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How could we have left out the arrest of five men for breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Office complex in Washington, D.C. on June 17, 1972 — the beginning of the Watergate Scandal?

Sca (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because the featured picture is somewhat related, and we love to trick users into asking exactly this question. Today though, it is especially silly. A picture of the president who pardoned the president who covered up watergate is obviously not the original break in. (also before anyone points out US bias or something, i'd like to call into question the bridges of london theme the main page has today)147.72.72.2 (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image was clearly connected to Watergate, was almost definitely specifically chosen to appear yesterday for that reason and had ample links to learn more, including specific mention of the date "June 17, 1972". So, no it's not silly to exclude Watergate from SA/OTD for that reason. And this has absolutely nothing to do with any bias but simply common sense. Besides that, your answer actually highlights how silly this discussion is. There are lots of days which have some connection to Watergate. The most important is probably the resignation of Nixon. There is no need to mention every single one on the main page every year. This discussion is even sillier then the previous one regarding D-day because there's no way Watergate is even close in importance to D-day. I don't know what 'bridges of London theme' your referring to yesterday, while I haven't looked into the history of DYK or ITN I only see evidence for one mention of bridges of London specifically in the TFA. If you are saying one mention is a 'theme', well I have nothing more to say Nil Einne (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, Nixon's resignation will make its appearance on August 9, 2009. Watergate gets two major placements on the Main Page this year. howcheng {chat} 06:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean for the theme thing to be taken seriously (the second mention was that banker who got hung off the blackfriars bridge). I also agree that since Watergate was the bolded link in the featured picture it should not have been included in OTD, I just meant that it took a couple steps to get from a picture of Ford to the actual break in, so I could see people being confused. Sorry again, 147.72.72.2 (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it was a bit convoluted, but September 8, 2009's POTD (the anniversary of the pardon) was already reserved for another anniversary. howcheng {chat} 16:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On this day items are not chosen strictly based on their importance. Like Today's Featured Articles they are chosen more for variety. APL (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Sca (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't I edit the main page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazareee (talk • contribs) 17:33, June 17, 2009 (UTC)

The main page is edit-protected to prevent vandalism of such an important page. Only administrators my edit it. If you want to report an error or request a change that can be done on this page. APL (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that you would easily be able to revert any vandalism. I'm sure there are thousands of users watchlisting this page (and even more would if the protection was removed). Doesn't it defeat the purpose of a wiki protecting nearly every page? I'm not saying the main page needs to be unprotected necessarily (perhaps semi-protection?), but it seems like a good quarter or so of the pages I view are protected. 75.90.144.239 (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have better things to do than revert constant vandalism which is exactly what you'd expect on such a page. JIMp _talk·cont 03:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, absolutely not. Main Page receives, on average, 70 page-views per second. It is unacceptable if even one of those people sees a goatse, because that's what would be there. A lot. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, that better? Yeah, I guess that makes sense. But isn't there some kind of thing that could be done to get edits approved perhaps? Some kind of software update could make it possible to make edits but not have them appear until an administrator approves them.75.90.144.239 (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Flagged revisions which currently has approval for a trial, which is being worked on at the moment. I'm not sure if the main page is likely to be in the trial however. (Actually I'm not that sure what happened to the trial period, the whole situation has been somewhat diverse and looking at the talk pages, it looks ike the issue has been somewhat dead for a while unless there is discussion somewhere else). Bear in mind as well that the main page is compromised of several templates unless you actually have some experience with wikipedia it is unlikely you'd know how to edit it. Also other then for obvious errors, the vast majority of changes to the main page require some discussion or evidence of consensus first. In other words, it's not just vandals we have to worry about. Nil Einne (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see [1] it's already been requested and developers will implement it when they get to it Nil Einne (talk) 07:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until Vandalismopedia is created, to which all such idiots can be banished to operate on perpetual iterative loops, and the wiki that is described by Adam Smith's 'war of all against all, where life is nasty, brutish and short' (paraphrase) where there are constant edit wars, some pages will have to be protected at various levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a good reason why anyone without current access to edit it would, in fact, need to edit it. Matty (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are various people with arguably sufficient experience with ITN (probably other areas too but I don't know) to be able to contribute constructively but who are not admins and there are definitely complaints of a lack of admin attention in some instances that I've seen Nil Einne (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of ITN - bit of help anyone? It's a bit dead over there for a weekend. --candle•wicke 04:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw POV in the first line "is an efficient way" that shouldnt be on the main page surely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.184.222 (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not, it is an efficient way, this is something people have been learning for ages. No POV here. --Tone 11:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The efficiency of an algorithm is demonstrable, not a matter of opinion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AND NONE OF YOU DELETE THIS I'M SICK OF WAITING SOMEONE TELL ME WHY [name removed] WON'T LEAVE ME ALONE I DEMAND AN EXPLANAITION PLEASE HELP IN OTHER WORDS THERE IS A STALKER ON WIKIPEDIA

Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably raise this at WP:WQA (deals with incivility) or WP:ANI (deals with serious incidents). Wherever you raise it, you should provide examples - I took a quick look at your talk page, and the revision history of some recent articles you've edited, and I couldn't see anything obvious so you should, where possible, explain exactly what's happening and ideally provide diffs. Good luck! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SHOUTING doesn't help, it's just rude. And rudeness is also quite rude. And I'm removing the name from your post. --Dweller (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's the same person who tried to assassinate you in Episode II? --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... that there is no mention in the Mexico article of the current lead regarding "Charlotte of Belgium (pictured) reigned as Empress of Mexico starting in 1864"? Kilmer-san (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an issue for WP:ERRORS --Dweller (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Ah, no it doesn't[reply]

(edit conflict) So what? It mentions Maximilian I of Mexico; why should it mention his wife? Algebraist 15:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bolded article is Belgium–Mexico relations, not Mexico. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that had been an error, it would have been an issue for WP:ERRORS. --Dweller (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mabey we should add

Adding that would let people who search for # get to the correct article. On the other hand we may want to keep the main page "clean". It will result in vandalism to "number sign" article, and likely protection. But by the same token, probably will result in major improvements to number sign, and thus, arguably, more then make up for vandalism/protection.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't do it for %s, we shouldn't do it for #. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair though, %s is a lot more obscure then # Nil Einne (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a discussion about %s? If so , please link to it. I did not find one.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here: %s, Emmette. Are you having fun, yet? Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it would be worth dropping the developers a note could they do something about the search box pointing to the Main Page if you enter "#". This is confusing. --dab (𒁳) 13:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Greenland (flag pictured) becomes a self-ruling country, taking control of its judicial affairs, policing and natural resources, as approved by the 2008 referendum."

Yes, but its foreign affairs, etc are still handled by Denmark. Greenland is not (at this point) an independent country yet. --RobNS 08:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what? A "self-ruling country" doesn't mean that it is an independent country. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but there's nothing wrong with the statement. It doesn't contradict what you say in anyw way. If you think there could be a better wording, try posting at WP:ERRORS 79.71.5.38 (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Hadn't realised there was a reply already. 79.71.5.38 (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the term is good enough for the BBC, it is good enough for Wikipedia --Daviessimo (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Wen said that Wikipedia's articles sometimes are unbelievable. The reason is that everyone can edit or alter an article.

So rediculus! I don't think so, how do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.164.97.76 (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could start by telling us who exactly the mysterious Mr. Wen is... --candle•wicke 10:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]