Help desk
< March 7	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 9 >

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.

March 8

Kill the Autocorrect !

Autocorrection has already wasted very much of my time. Is there some way to disable it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.198.64 (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not use autocorrect. If you are concerned about autocorrection as you edit Wikipedia, check your browser settings. If that doesn't work, add information about what you are using to view and edit Wikipedia.

If you want to disable autocorrect for computer activities other than editing Wikipedia, try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. It will be helpful to describe what software you are using when the unwanted autocorrection occurs. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AutoCorrect does occur in Wikipedia, depending on browser settings, in the browser window to edit a page. As the previous response says, that is a function of the browser and not of Wikipedia, and it would be a good idea to try the computing reference desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those answers. I am still trying to figure out my browser settings. 104.129.198.64 (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming articles

In addition to the "Requested move" template, which goes on an article's talk page, I thought I remembered seeing another message that was supposed to go at the top of the article itself when a rename was proposed. Now I can't seem to locate it. Does it exist, or am I imagining it? 217.44.208.185 (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try {{cleanup-articletitle}} and related. But I have a feeling you were thinking of {{merge}} and such. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be thinking of {{Db-move|page to be moved|reason}}, which requests that a page be speedily deleted so that another page can be moved to that title. —teb728 t c 05:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Long, long ago, {{move}} used to be put directly on article pages. You can still see it deep in the bowels of Template:Requested_move/dated's history. I suspect that it was decided that it wasn't important enough to be used outside of the Talk: namespace anymore.

There's still a few variants that seem intented for articlespace usage, like {{vandal move}} and {{disputed title}}. Some, probably far from all, are shown at Wikipedia:Template messages/Moving. —Cryptic 06:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I believe I was indeed thinking of the "merge" messages. 86.150.71.23 (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

information

How can i listento audio stories in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.252.1.156 (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear on what you mean by "stories" but Wikipedia:Media help might help you. Dismas|^(talk) 10:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Spoken articles. Mjroots (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Additional citations for verification"

I have added additional cites, links, and references since the article was initially submitted; however, I still see the below notation on the entry. Question: How can I get this notation removed from the article? I have seen other articles on similar subjects (other AFN AFRTS subjects) that contain fewer referenced material, links, etc., yet they are "free" from this notation. Again, after the adding of additional info, how can the info in the box quoted below be remove? (Article title: AFN Bremerhaven)

"This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2014)"

Thank you for any advice and assistance you may be able to provide. TucsonTerp76 (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do need to read about reliable sources. One particular point is that wikis are not acceptable as references, see WP:CIRCULAR. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the image at the top of AFN Bremerhaven has been uploaded in breach of copyright. The image itself is the uploader's own work, but it very clearly shows a book cover whose copyright presumably still belongs to the book's publisher. Maproom (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notablity of ChineseSkill

Is ChineseSkill, Chinese-learning app, notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia? I have been asked to create an article on this, and a Google search shows quite some number of results. I'm still new to creating articles, so can someone advice me? Thanks, heyzec! 08:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, ChineseSkill is not notable. Notability requires mention in independent reliable sources. When I used Google to search for "ChineseSkill", I found links to its publisher (not independent), and to download sites, blogs and discussion forums (not reliable). But I found nothing that could be regarded as an acceptable source.

Incidentally – I found a lot of criticism of the product, including descriptions of it as a "knockoff of Duolingo". Not that that would any relevance for its notabilty, even if it were reliable. Maproom (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find mentions from The Star Online, Huffington Post and Jakarta Post here... heyzec! 09:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The "Star Online" article looks acceptable; the "Huffington Post" article does not mention the product; and the "Jakarta Post" article uses the phrase "Chinese skill" in an unrelated way. I am intrigued that Google gives you such different results from the ones it gives me. This effect of the "Google bubble" can be important in discussions of notability, see for instance this discussion. Maproom (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more point, Hz.tiang. Who is it who has asked you to create this article? If it is anybody connected with ChineseSkill, please make sure you read about conflict of interest before going any further. --ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New user

What's the template for welcoming new editors? User:Ashok Royal BT's making a nuisance of him/herself at Royal and Royal (name). I can't tell if it's from simple ignorance or determined trolling. I figure a "Welcome!" and "Don't do that because ..." are in order. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there are several templates available, generally under the {welcome} , {welcome2} etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have Twinkle turned on in your preferences, and then go to the user's talk page, there will be a number of possible welcome and warning messages available to you under the Twinkle menu at the top right of your browser window. It's between the Watchlist star and the search box. Dismas|^(talk) 10:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citing yourself as source for a relative's page

I am the grandson of someone who has his own Wikipedia page. Can I then add information about his personal life, when there are no other reliable sources available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christiaanjmeyer (talk • contribs) 14:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. I don't think that even relatives qualify as reliable sources. You might also want to be careful that people don't start crying "conflict of interest!" Sorry. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Adar 5775 15:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A chief reason for the above is that verifiability requires that we cite published sources that others can review themselves.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, forgot about that one. Yon Crooklyn lawyer is correct! You could write an article or even a book about him if you're feeling up to it. If you can get it published somewhere then you'd have your source! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Adar 5775 15:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - you cannot get it published "somewhere", it must be a reliable publishing house - not self published or a Vanity publication - Arjayay (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought getting it published implied using a publisher whereas just saying publishing would mean self-publication. Didn't know about these vanity publishers though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Adar 5775 17:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, this has been discussed several times before in Wikipedia, but I think, a relative can offer more correct information about a person than somebody else, who maybe doesn't even know the person. I think information could be added with a note that the information has been added by a relative for example on the article's talk page -- Metrophil44 (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Metrophil44: Unfortunately there's nothing to stop a malicious editor posting false information while claiming to be a relative. If readers are to trust what they read in an article, it must be backed up by references to reliable, published sources. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a further aspect to this, Metrophil44: even if somebody who really is a relative does insert accurate information, anybody could come along the next day or the next week or year and change it, whether maliciously, accidentally, or in good faith. If it is referenced to a published source, then a reader for whom the detail is important can go and check that source; but if it is not, the reader cannot tell whether it has been altered, or by whom. --ColinFine (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not forgetting that if said relative is still alive, WP:BLP applies. That overrides all else. Mjroots (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome crash

Is it just me, or do these two pages crash Chrome? (latest version, Mac)

I assume it's a Chrome bug involving fonts (not Wikipedia's problem of course... just looking for confirmation). Thanks. Brycehughes (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine for me on Win7. Rojomoke (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using Chrome on a Mac. Latest updates and all that.

For the first link, I can't view the page. Chrome tells me there was an error but I can't view the content of the page. For the second, it displays normally except for the Syriac text in the first couple lines of the lead. I only see boxes which is strange because I never have that issue anywhere else.

That said, you might want to bring this to WP:VPT.

Hope this helps, Dismas|^(talk) 03:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for an image

I am looking for an image representing a broken tool to display on my own page. The idea is to show when a wiki-tool is broken and prevents me from updating information. I tried searching using the term File:broken tools but the list I got is way too long.

How do I search wp:files to find this type of image? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try adding double quotes: File:"broken tools" and File:"broken tool" return much shorter lists. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:John of Reading. yes it is a much shorter list, but how very American. sigh... Ottawahitech (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{Superimpose}} can place a red X on a tool. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey request

Dear Sir/Madame,

My name is Augustina Hickinson and I'm in the final stage of my BSc in Psychology program. I'm required to conduct a psychology research project and have decided to do a study on Internet use, personality traits and the impact this may have on an individual's social life. My research study requires at least 300 participants world wide and anyone could participate in the survey. However, participants should be 18 years or older and in possession of a computer device to enable them to take part in the online survey. The survey should be completed by April 10th, 2015. Participation in this study involves, 3 short online surveys which should take approximately 10 minutes complete. Participation is completely voluntary and participants may withdraw from the study at any time (within 2 weeks after completion). I would like to know, if any of the existing forums on your website can assist me in distributing my survey. I'm not sure how I most go about obtaining participants on a world wide or large scale. Are there any suggestions (links, forums, other websites etc.) as to where I may gain a large number of responses to my survey? If you have any questions or concerns about the institutional approval of this study, please direct your concerns to: Dr Lauren Kelly (Module Leader: Psychology Research Project) or Dr. Zaheer, Hussain (Psychology research Project Supervisor), at the University of Derby. N207, Kedleston Road, Derby. Tel: [redacted]

If you have any questions regarding the study, please do not hesitate to contact me by using the contact information below.

Thank you in advance for your support and assistance.

Yours truly,

Name: Ms. Augustina Hickinson Email: [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chichusxm (talk • contribs) 19:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chichusxm, please contact the Wikimedia Research Committee for assistance and approval. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have redacted the phone number and e-mail address that you posted. Wikipedia pages are highly visible on the internet and posting such details is asking for trouble.--ukexpat (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Kapoor (actor) & Karan Kapoor

Hello,

I want upload an image of both these actors. Please can you help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripalparmar (talk • contribs) 21:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but you will have to be more specific.

Do you mean one image of both, or an image of each?
Are you thinking of a specific image or images?
If you are, where are the images now? Are they free from copyright? Or do you own the copyright in them?

Maproom (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Maproom points out, the copyright on the images is an important question. If the images are not freely licensed, then you'll run into problems keeping them in the articles. For specific instructions and a few links to help you out, see WP:UPLOAD. Dismas|^(talk) 23:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Books apparently plagiarized from Wikipedia

Has English Wikipedia a place to report/collect instances of non-license compliant uses of Wikipedia content in printed (or e-book) material? German Wikipedia has de:Wikipedia:Weiternutzung/Mängel/Print for that. I'm asking because I stumbled upon a quite unpleasant use of (English) Wikipedia for books that are sold as Kindle e-books and Print on Demand at Amazon, also to warn fellow Wikipedians of buying them or using them as a source. I'm talking about a series by "Emereo Publishing" that has "success facts" in the titles, for example Rosa Luxemburg 155 Success Facts – Everything You Need to Know about Rosa Luxemburg, ISBN 1488560315. The content of these books seems to be partly or fully plagiarized from Wikipedia, with words replaced with synonyms to conceal that, probably in an automated way. Using Amazon's preview, I see e.g. text from English Wikipedia's article Dependency theory in the Luxemburg book. Wikipedia's original text in the "History" paragraph reads:

Dependency theory originates with two papers published in 1949 – one by Hans Singer, one by Raúl Prebisch – in which the authors observe that the terms of trade for underdeveloped countries relative to the developed countries had deteriorated over time: the underdeveloped countries were able to purchase fewer and fewer manufactured goods from the developed countries in exchange for a given quantity of their raw materials exports.

Appears in the book under "Dependency theory - History" as:

Dependency hypothesis originates with 2 documents issued in 1949 - one by Hans Singer, one by Raúl Prebisch - in that the writers notice that the specifications of commerce for underdeveloped nations comparative to the elaborated nations had worsened over time: the underdeveloped nations were capable to acquisition less and less produced wares as of the the elaborated nations in interchange for a specified amount of their rare exports.

etc. - in my opinion, it's a clear case, they just replaced "theory" with "hypothesis", "two papers" with "2 documents", "authors" with "writers" and so on. I suppose the Wikimedia Foundation can't do a lot to prevent this kind of stuff happening (as they're not enforcers of the license)... Gestumblindi (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Republishers. -- Gadget850^talk 23:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is OUTRAGEOUS that Wikipedia's licensing terms seem to permit this disgraceful practice. I am sure that many people contributing to Wikipedia do not realise that somebody can copy their work and sell it in one of these so-called "books", and would cease contributing if they did know. Wikipedia urgently needs to change its licensing arrangements to prevent this. Failing that, there needs to be a big warning prior to sumbission of an edit. A link to pages and pages of impenetrable legalese is not good enough. 31.51.1.169 (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything indicating that this is permitted without attribution. MediaWiki:wikimedia-copyrightwarning is displayed above the "Save page" button. The license requires that republishers give attribution to the source, also for derivative works. I'm not a lawyer and don't know whether the unattributed word substitution in the example would be considered a copyright violation in a given jurisdiction, but if it isn't then it seems like an issue with the law of that jurisdiction and not with Wikipedia's license. If your issue is that the Wikimedia Foundation does not sue republishers then I'm not sure they have a legal standing when they are not the owner of the material. Do you think it would be better if the license was changed so Wikipedia editors gave up their own rights and donated all their contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation? I think that would be very unpopular. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was permitted without attribution. The fact that someone can copy Wikipedia articles and sell them with attribution is quite outrageous. I am quite sure that many contributors have no idea at all that this is allowed. 31.51.1.169 (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The CC BY-SA 3.0 License terms are quite clear. Editors are encouraged to read them, and have agreed to accept them. you might want to read it yourself, and perhaps wp:REUSE too. Wikipedia does not accept material under the CC BY-SA-NC 3.0 License^[1].LeadSongDog come howl! 03:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it may be mentioned somewhere does not make it acceptable. My belief is that the majority of Wikipedia's contributors would not want or expect this to be allowed. People should NOT be allowed to copy Wikipedia articles and sell them for profit, end of. 31.51.1.169 (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. Whether or not one considers it to be acceptable, the license has in fact been accepted by the contributors who are the legal owners of their contributions. If gullible or inattentive buyers choose to pay for inferior paper copies of WP articles, there is nothing we can do about that except to ensure that attribution is made. Most of these shady operators are well known, but there's always a new one coming along. At one time Amazon was actively engaged with and supporting Kessinger Publishing a similar on-demand publisher who was churning out reprints of scanned public domain works from archive.org at obscene prices to unsuspecting librarians. They've cleaned up their act somewhat, but the wreckage is still scattered across the Open library, Worldcat, and other databases.LeadSongDog come howl! 05:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Immediately above the "Save page" button any time you save, it says : "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution", with relevant links, so contributors have no excuse for not knowing. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@31.51.1.169: please don't derail this thread into a NC vs. "free" as "defined" by freedomdefined.org debate, so far BY-SA (by attribution, share alike) works reasonably well for almost all Wikimedia projects and for some years. The main point here is the missing attribution, and the also missing "share alike", e.g., PDFs published for a (free) download. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ We have no CC BY_SA_NC wiki page, so here's a link to creativecommons.org: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/

@Gadget850: Thanks for pointing out Wikipedia:Republishers, will add "Emereo Publishing" there. - Regarding the subsequent discussion: Indeed, if you adhere to the CC-BY-SA, you may publish books consisting solely of Wikipedia content, and publishers like VDM Publishing have done so in the past - criticized for lack of quality and the expensiveness of their books, but at least it seems they always acknowledged Wikipedia as their source and satisfied the license requirements by attribution in the books. This is a different case, as the publishers - as far as I can see in the previews - don't mention their source or the license at all, attribute every book with copyright to some arbitrary author's name, whilst having plagiarized the contents from Wikipedia through apparently automated rephrasing. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] We have no CC BY_SA_NC wiki page, so here's a link to creativecommons.org: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/

[1]