Wikipedia talk:About/New and anonymous editors

Censorship?

I have just noticed that censorship-like measures have been taken to prevent editing specific pages (e.g. pages related to Barack Obama or Climate Change). As far as I understand these measures, the term "free encyclopedia" and the statement that "...anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles..." are at least misleading and do not reflect the facts, so they should be removed from this page. Vodiesel (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be semi-protection. I'll check whether the page makes the existence of that restriction clear enough. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

To me it seems like protection of correct propaganda for needed time, nothing to do with freedom or any other values Wikipedia tries to present as it's own. If Wikipedia contain political content (which would be imposible to push out) then there are themes that people have different feelings and because of revision history everyone could always read any version so there is reason to block anything but viagra bots - unles the reason itself is political. -- Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.146.79.111 (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Really good point. there are parts where we cannot edit. but this is for great reasons. first, what else would be stopping people from putting THIER partys version, as for the barack obama, they locked it so people could not mudsling and slander, same with it all. not that i agree with some locked things. - Awesomedude52--Awesomedude52 (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)--Awesomedude52 (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed that the "Jew" page notes that it is also a nation. Israel is not a nation but an illegal occupation of Palestine. I tried to edit this clear mistake and editing was blocked. This both censors wikipedia and allows people to full the site with lies and false information (like in this case). Judism is a religion and not a nation. There is no legal nation that these people belong to. Please correct this or open editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.234.123 (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense right on the About Wikipedia "Project page"

Under the sub-heading "Editorial administration, oversight, and management, Main page: Wikipedia:Editorial oversight and control", it says of Editors: "At present a 75–80% approval rating from the community is required to take on these additional tools and responsibilities." As written, this would mean that an approval rating of 81-100% would disqualify one from being an editor! If 75% is the minimum, then the statement should simply read "At present a minimum 75% approval rating from the community is required to take on these additional tools and responsibilities." 74.60.74.110 (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

extensions

Please, could someone write a list of extensions used in wikipedia? Some of those, which seem to be used are dated and specificaly the cite.php ends on mediawiki version 1.14 while wikipedia is running 1.16. I think it should be on this page or at least linked from this page. D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.146.79.111 (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

See Special:Version. -- œ^™ 12:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Favicon @ Wikipedia

Can you plz (plz) make the favicon @ wikipedia transparent? It's really annoying me. --70.22.193.246 (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Our technical discussion page would be the proper place to bring this up. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the link to WP:VAN

Please change it to reflect the statement: "This is not a noticeboard for vandalism. Report vandalism at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism." placed atop the aforementioned page itself. 99.230.105.19 (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A misspelled word

This: "non-specialists" is misspelled. The word is "nonspecialists". Please correct this spelling.
In common nouns and common adjectives, the prefix "non" is never hyphenated onto anything, and we can find 100 correct examples. Here are a few: nonbeliever, nonconductor, nonfunctional, nongermaine, nonhuman, nonliving, nonmaterial, nonmetal, nonoptimal, nonparticipant, nonrural, nonsense, and nonverbal. 98.67.111.72 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a duplicate of a request at Wikipedia_talk:About#editsemiprotected RudolfRed (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

...which, for reference, was  Done with this edit. Begoon ^talk 02:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Please also correct "non-commercial" into "noncommercial",

and "non-profit" into "nonprofit", in more than one place on these pages. Someone seems to have gone "wild" with excessive hyphens.

98.67.111.72 (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've done those, because I agree with you, as does wiktionary, WP:HYPHEN and most Google searches - although both usages do exist, I think on balance this is correct. The remaining "non-" items seem to be correct as is. Amusingly, if you want to get the non-profit in the page footer altered, I think you'll need to take that up with the WMF! Why not consider getting an account if you want to make many edits like this? Not in any way required, but might make life easier... Begoon ^talk 04:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Just an addendum - the "non-profit" in Sister projects is in a fairly widely used template, and, because of this, remains unaltered. You'd need to discuss that on the relevant talk page for {{WikipediaSister}}. Also, these edits are slightly bold, so if they are reverted by another editor, consensus will need to be established. There are arguments both ways, so WP:BRD applies. Begoon ^talk 05:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikipedia

As this page is about Wikipedia, it seems that the talk page should carry the WikiProject banner, {{WikiProject Wikipedia}} -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikipedia scope change

FYI, see a proposal at WT:WikiProject Wikipedia to change its scope -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)