Help desk
< December 28	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

December 29

presidential decisions

how do i find facts about presidential decisions with george washington? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.40 (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Try looking at George Washington or asking on the Reference Desk (linked at the top of this page). -- Kesh 00:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on articles being hijacked?

I know there is a policy that says you cannot hijack an article and insert material on another subject, but I cannot find this in the Wiki policy. I seen it a few weeks ago, but despite an extensive search I am at a loss to find it. I am having a problem with a user who is hijacking an article on a specific crime and using the article to talk about definitions of crime in general.

--87.80.140.49 00:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that comes to mind, without more information, is no edit wars. -- Kesh 01:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also people are not allowed to OWN an article see WP:OWN or add their own original research see WP:OR - hope they help. Lethaniol 01:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could have seen this, but thats all I can think of. -- Sir Escher ^talk 01:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove the material as vandalism, and give the user a stern (or better yet, friendly and inviting)talking-to. Has this user been welcomed yet? They might not know what they're doing.Nina Odell 01:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with the Wikipedia policy and guidelines. It is hard to find things that should be there under a clear section. There is definately a part that says not to take over one article with another subject. It states it in much stronger terms than the above link. --87.80.140.49 01:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they put material about something with the same name in because they don't know about naming conventions and disambiguations? You could try explaining those... - Mgm|^(talk) 12:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about blocking

I can't believe this, but for the life of me I can't remember the link to get to the page where a non admin can put users up for blocking. This one guy vandalising Rocky Balbao needs to be blocked, just need the link. Here's a link to him, in case you'd like to do it. Dooms Day349 01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dooms Day349 01:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary fonts needing to be installed

I'm having an issue that every Wikipedia page I load, I get a dialog (from IE6) saying

This page uses fonts that need to be temporarily installed. This is usually safe. 
Do you want to allow these fonts to be downloaded?

It's very annoying, there is no noticeable difference from answering yes or no, and I don't see how to automate the answering of this question.

Is this just me with this problem? NSilter 02:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is something you can try: (from yahoo answers) Go to tools > internet options > security > custom level > downloads > font download > "enable" > ok > yes > ok. --Infrangible 03:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Stable version" of wikipedia website?

Remember once coming across a website that used some kind of algorithm to direct you to the history of an article's page to what they have determined is the last stable version. Can anybody else remember the website? Mathmo ^Talk 03:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be thinking of User:Messedrocker/Stablepedia, where versions are identified by criteria set by that user.Also, there was a proposal to do this more formally, but that project page is now marked as inactive.24.20.69.240 06:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, was something totally different. So that it could "work" for all articles on wikipedia. Did it by analyzing the history of edits to the article. Mathmo ^Talk 06:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed, there is also an external Stablepedia site,which uses a computer algtithm to find the "best" version to direct you to on the wikipedia site. Seems decent, though it`s really slow.--24.20.69.240 06:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Thanks, that is what I saw earlier. Mathmo ^Talk 06:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

monobook.js subpage question

Question probably for an admin, or someone familiar with monobook.js subpages:

If you look at [1], or AfD_debates_Not_yet_sorted, there are 8 monobook pages that keep showing up in the AfD debates category! It appears that the wording in the monobook script is getting picked up by the software/bot that creates the AfD pages. Not a big deal, but they probably shouldn't be showing up there!

Also, I couldn't find the source for that specific monobook.js at the user scripts page, possible it's just one that was discontinued and simply not deleted, as it's just a few users? Thanks SkierRMH 03:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be a bot, monobook pages are fully protected to everyone but the user and admins. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, the category template is transcluded somehow. I'll figure out where and try to fix it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we're going to need an admin to go through there and fix it up. It's in the autoafd() function. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to do it, but I do not see how the script is referencing the category. Could you point it out please? Prodego ^talk 04:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the "Template:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD" template... Prodego ^talk 04:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias to whomever cleared this up! The pages are no longer being picked up and puut into this category. SkierRMH 18:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Unsourced Material

Okay, the "Controversy" section under Heelys is getting ridiculous.

Almost everything there appears to be pulled directly out of the air, and the one source given (Winston Ng's page) to support one claim isn't exactly credible.

I mean, if I wanted to, I could easily make a webpage saying that the moon is made out of green cheese and source that, but I don't think it'd last long under the article Moon, nor could I keep the same claims there under "Citation Needed"!

I'm tempted to purge the whole section but I don't want to be accused of vandalism.

What exactly is the Wiki etiquette with regards to nuking unsourced garbage? 24.111.32.167 03:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with WP:V on this one. If it's completely unsourced, based on something someone believes and/or "heard somewhere," then it should simply be removed. If a user objects, it could be moved to the Talk page where it can be worked on provided those users are willing to expend the effort of helping find sources. Otherwise, it turns into vandalism.

A large section of that article is not neutral, and obviously based on personal opinion rather than verified fact ("may contribute to the overweight children syndrome"). I'd lean towards removing the Controversy section entirely until someone can provide verifiable facts. -- Kesh 04:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, if the information is just unsourced but not necessarily untrue, see WP:REF#Tagging_unsourced_material. -- Sir Escher ^talk 04:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially negative info on people is treated more harshly. See WP:BLP. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what is the name Ponzi Scheme named after?

$Insertformulahere$ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.36.225.244 (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

This question would be more appropriate on the Humanities desk, but while it's here, if you read the Ponzi scheme article, you will find out the answer. Anchoress 08:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was half a question, half a test. X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 02:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useful Photos?

Hi, I wonder if a kindly Dutch speaker and/or photo license expert can help?

On the Dutch wiki site, use is frequently made of a Belgian database of photos at http://www.ferz.be/fiche/photo.php. These photos are all of chess players and use of the site in augmenting the writing of english chess biographies would be as useful as it has proved on the Nederland site.

An example, if you go into nl.wikipedia, is 'Vlastimil Jansa' - go to his bio and see the licensing attached to his photo. It appears that permission is valid for use of wiki projects only ( - the english text at the bottom of the license) and that acknowledgement should be paid to someone called Marc Rogers, I'm guessing ( - near the top). It also says on the license that it is no longer a valid license. My questions are then - can I use these photos? Do I need to acknowledge Marc Rogers each time? and What is the appropriate license to use on the english wiki?

A positive outcome on this would be worth its weight in gold, as many of our existing chess bios are pictureless. Can you help? Brittle heaven 08:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot use wiki permission only photos as they have to be useable downstream for derivatives of the project. Any images uploaded with this kind of license is now speedily deletable.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 08:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair comment, but most everything is written in Dutch so I don't know what is and isn't allowed - maybe the pictures are fair use for wiki AND all of its derivatives. Anyone else have an opinion on this?Brittle heaven 10:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally the pictures are all low definition and isn't there an argument that says they can be used with acknowledgement of the author in the absence of anything available in the public domain? - Brittle heaven 10:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rating Articles

I rated all 16 of the unassessed Blackadder articles (see list here). I did this by going on to each page, putting the rating on the talk page, and if it was a stub, adding that to the bottom of the normal page. Why hasn't the list been changed? (I've waited long enough for the list to be updated) Rocket71048576 10:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hang in there. If I remember correctly, Mathbot gets around to it once a day and updates the pages. So give it a day and you'll see it done — Lost^(talk) 10:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not able to edit semi-protected articles..."

Um..how do I edit semi-protected articles if my account is 4 days old or more? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hpbiggestfan (talk • contribs) 11:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I don't recall the exact technical specifics -- if the software literally does use 4 days (96 hours) as the standard, without any loopholes or other caveats, then it's probably worth noting that your account was about 95 hours and 21 minutes old, at the time you made this post to the help desk. Try again in a short while, and see if you can edit. Hope that helps! Luna Santin 11:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is actually the lowest x% (1% maybe?), of users that can edit semi-protected articles. Prodego ^talk 17:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:SEMI, the criteria is 4 days, though it doesn't specify how or when it calculates this. -- Sir Escher ^talk 18:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prodego, I think [2] shows edits from the last 1% of users, which is what you may be thinking of.--Werdan7^{T @} 19:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely four days. It previously was the lowest χ% of accounts, but when semi-protection was enabled, it was determined directly using the user_registration field of an account, using the User::getEffectiveGroups function within MediaWiki. Tito xd^(?!?) 04:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIPEDIA TOOLBAR

Can i put a wikipedia search box on my browser toolbar? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.34 (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Probably, check WP:TOOLS. If you want a more detailed answer, please tell us what browser you are using. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe there's some mention of that at [3]. Luna Santin 13:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to write how to put a search box in your browser toolbar if you have Safari. The rest of the browsers are all covered. X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 02:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIPEDIA TOOLBAR

im using firefox —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.34 (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC). Thank you![reply]

One Wikipedia toolbar for editing in Firefox can be found here [4] Cheers Lethaniol 14:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Firefox 2.0, just click on the little drop down arrow in your search box (next to the Google icon) and select "Manage Search Engines." In the box that pops up, click on "Get More Search Engines." Then just click on the link for Wikipedia in the browser window/tab that opens and let it install. -- Kesh 18:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storing articles

HOW CAN I STORE ANY ARTICLE FROM WIKIPEDIA IN MY WIKIPEDIA ACCOUNT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.1.114.240 (talk • contribs) 07:23, December 29, 2006

The easiest thing to do is just click on the Watch tab at the top of the article. Then it will show up on your own Watch List. It's best to actually sign up for an account to do this, though. -- Kesh 18:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posting Company Profiles

I wrote an article about The Catamaran Company(www.catamarans.com) and it was deleted. This is a valid and existing company. My question why can IBM have an article up on Wikipedia and not The Catamaran Company?

What are the requirements? Is there a specific outline to follow?

Thanks you, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catamarans (talk • contribs) 19:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Try reading through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Catamaran Company, which may shed some light on why this was deleted (though the link given is from a deletion on 23 August 2006). There are a few pages cited which you may find informative, specifically WP:AUTO, WP:CORP, and WP:NOT. If I'm missing the point, could you give the exact name of the article that was deleted and a rough idea of when it was deleted? BigNate37_(T) 19:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost scammed!

Thank you so much for providing this website to the public! We were almost scammed and are currently in the middle of it. We found the letter that we have answered from the scammers listed on your website. Please, as this scam is still active (the scammers don't know we are on to them) we would like to contact the proper authorities to have these people arrested. Can you guide us on how we are able to achieve this? The scam is the inheritance scam with unclaimed money held in the Caixa De Catalunya bank Spain. Thank you.

Gina —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gstockwell (talk • contribs) 19:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It depends on your jurisdiction. My guess is, were you in Canada as I am, local police would be who to call (if there exists a municipal force) or failing that the RCMP. Who would you call if your car was stolen? BigNate37_(T) 20:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird change in userbox... How can it be fixed?

This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one.

This userbox used to say 'This user is not an administrator and does not want to be one', but the last part is now gone. I don't know how to find the userbox to see what happened, how do I do that? Anchoress 21:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template is located at Template:User wikipedia/Anti-Administrator. You can view the history from there. For future reference, all templates can be found in the Template namespace. =) Kalani ^[talk] 21:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! Anchoress 21:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK need more help if poss?

k, per my talkpage, and the template talkpage, it seems the issue was User:SqueakBox wanting a userbox that identifies editors as non-admins without the qualifier. Since s/he had already created a new userbox:

This user is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

I just removed the redirect from the old userbox and restored the original text. But in order to make the whole thing more skookum, I thought I'd create a Category so editors using the box will be correctly identified (Category: Wikipedians who aren't administrators), but I don't know how. Anchoress 22:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I figured it out. Anchoress 22:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to "Bob Barr" article

A few days ago I read an article about former congressman Bob Barr, and when I went back to it today it was gone. How do I find out what happened, and how to retrieve the article if it is still available?

Knabnek 23:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see Bob Barr just fine. --Derlay 23:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's working fine now. I just don't understand why it wasn't working yesterday.

Knabnek 18:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]