Help desk
< June 23	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 25 >

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.

June 24[edit]

Redirects Computer technology (small T) and Computer Technology (big T)[edit]

The redirects Computer technology (small T) and Computer Technology (big T) point to different pages. Computer technology (small T) goes to Computing, Computer Technology (big T) goes to Computer. Which just seems wrong. Any thoughts on policy for such a situation, or a way to resolve it? Creating a dab page, and pointing both spellings at it, is about all I can think of, but what to call it? Computing technology? With entries for Computing, Computer and Computer Technology Limited? Rwessel (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Computing seems like a poor redirect target to me. It's an activity, whereas computer technology is more "nuts and bolts" hardware and software IMO. To use an analogy, automotive technology is more about the car, not the driving. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like capital T is usually referring to an educational course (which basically means computing), where as small t is usually referring to the technology itself (which usually means computer). — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 06:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rear-Admiral William Brown (1764-1815)[edit]

<ref>{{cite book|last1=Brown|first1=Alastair|title=My Inestimable Friend|date=24 June 2016|publisher=Awaiting Publication|location=MOSMAN|isbn=applied for}}</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Alastair R Brown (talk • contribs) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been fixed with this edit. However, there may be an OR question? Eagleash (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge[edit]

Refs number 4 and 23 are hopeless. Please fix. Very much appreciated. Signed confusedSrbernadette (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

4 & 25 both had ref errors. Eagleash (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit with no changes[edit]

See [1]. How is it possible for an edit to have no differences? Of course this is normal with a pagemove or protection action, since they don't change the wikitext, but this edit merely edited the wikitext and yet didn't edit anything. Basically, I don't understand why this didn't end up as a null edit. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page history says a byte was added. It may have been a question of a terminating newline or a one- or two-byte representation of newline. Details like this have been omitted from diffs in the past. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Dummy edit ... Lourdes 14:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But when you perform a dummy edit, it makes a change that shows up in the diff view; it doesn't say (No difference). Unless it's something truly bizarre, I'll have to go with PrimeHunter's explanation. Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it would be cool to be able to do a null-dummy edit, that is, a dummy edit intended to leave a summary without having to randomly add a space here or there. Please ping me if more explanation appears. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge[edit]

A problem (sorry) I have failed in my attempt to add one new name - Captain Peter Francis Middleton - into the big box at the top of the page, with their links. Please link him in to his own section further down the page.

(Later) I have got his name there now - but the link does not take me to the section where he has his own stuff - further down the page.... Please help me

Thanks so much Srbernadette (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Maproom (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

/* References */ Please tell me how to add a reference correctly ![edit]

Please tell me how to add a reference correctly! Please take a look at reference #16 in the Wikipedia article on "Butterscotch". I know I didn't do it right -- if I "edit source", exactly how to I proceed to get the reference in the right place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob day NH (talk • contribs) 14:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start by looking at where the other citations are located, for example, #15 at the end of the "Butterscotch sauce" section. The content of the reference is placed within reference tags, i.e. <ref>reference content</ref>. The "References" section has a {{reflist}} template, which causes all of the references to be listed together in order of their appearance up above. So if you want to use #16 as a citation for the text "Butterscotch is good.", write Butterscotch is good.<ref>[http://bytesandpieces.org/?p=436 About Butterscotch and How to Make Butterscotch Flavor Powder], Bob Day, June 2016</ref> Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob day NH, you want to put the reference at the end of the statement that it's supporting. Not down in the references section. The numbers, 16 in this case, will be added automatically. I suggest you start with WP:REFB. Dismas|^(talk) 15:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Bob is adding a reference to his own blog. Eagleash (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bob day NH and welcome. The suggestion of WP:REFB above is relevant, because it tells you what to do. Please do check that the source you wish to add is acceptable, though.

About how to add sources conveniently... My personal preference to add references when one is editing with a Wikipedia account is to use RefToolbar. It is by no means compulsory but it is fairly convenient as it produces the esoteric code by itself, you just have to fill in the info.

You can activate in in your preferences, "gadget" tab (quick link: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets), tick in the "RefToolbar" box (at the end of the "Editing" section) and save your preferences (button at the bottom of the page).

Afterwards, when you open a page for edition, the bar just above the editing box will have a "cite" dropdown menu. From there "templates" give you access to predefined options to quote various types of sources.

Best luck, Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am always greatly bothered[edit]

when I see a picture such as File:UlaanBaatarCathedral.jpg that shows a building not squared up. So I copied the picture, straightened the building - did not do some badly needed photoshopping which the picture needs - and want to return it. I know that there is a way to do this rather than just deleting the current effort and uploading my version as if it were my picture. Can someone tel me how to do this? Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you just upload the straightened version on top of the current one? Go to [2], select the straightened one from your hard drive as if it were a new one you were about to upload normally, and in the place you'd normally put an image description page, just write something descriptive as if it were an edit summary, e.g. "Straightened image". commons:COM:OVERWRITE is the relevant policy; basic fixes like straightening are always welcome. Nyttend (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the link in Nyttend's post there is an option to "Upload a new version of this file", then follow Nyttend's instructions. Silverfish (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think the update link you gave was precisely what Carptrash asked for; it is located on Commons, under the "File history" section.

Now for the policy... While a fix like "straightening" would likely be welcome, it is just not possible to rotate a .jpg without loss of pixels (except for multiples of 90°). (For whoever cares, here is a taste of the madness.) I guess that if the original resolution is high enough it would be no problem but you should be sure the result is acceptable. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been one too concerned with "policy" and find the word "acceptable" to be . . . ...interesting. But that's not why I am here. I uploaded the maybe acceptable changed image to Commons, (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UlaanBaatarCathedral.jpg) everything looks fine, the old info is there along with the new, but when I post it in the article I still get the old image. This is not acceptable. Any ideas? Carptrash (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There, it just popped. Seems to be fine now, thanks all, Carptrash (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for your help, Einar. The old image is the result of caching; see Wikipedia:Bypass your cache in the future. Don't think that "acceptable" is just a policy matter: feel free to be your own judge, and if you don't find it acceptable to yourself, don't feel like you have to do it. I'm a Commons admin, so I've dealt with this kind of thing in the past. I suppose I ought to remind you that we have a help desk over there as well (commons:COM:HD), where such a question can also be asked. Nyttend (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good ideas, @Nyttend:, I don't think of going to Commons help, probably won't next time either, I am a slow learner. I am completely comfortable with my approach to "policy" and to "acceptable", which is just another word for "in my opinion."Carptrash (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use of screenshots[edit]

Hello all. I have an article I am working on that has some very poor screenshots being uploaded to it (File:Helicopter_dumping_salt_water.png). Common sense seems to indicate these are not valid images. They are screenshots of a news video which seems to violate WP:NFC but they also include the border of the video player... Is there a section that I can reference that directly indicates that these are invalid images? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those were Commons images. While our policies here are relevant to their use, merely having those images in the first place is a matter of Commons policy, which says no fair use claims, whatsoever. They've already been deleted for that reason. Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Thanks! Much appreciated. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CSMA CLUB[edit]

Please be aware that "CSMA Club" has changed its name and is now "Boundless at CSMA" Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.157.158 (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is inaccurate information on this page that is about me. I would like this to be fixed.

Please find me directly via my verified pages so that this can be updated.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.157.29 (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Civil Service Motoring Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) might be the article in quesstion. This Bemoreboundless (talk · contribs) could be the person the IP is referring to. If I am wrong please feel free to remove this post so it does not confuse the situation further. MarnetteD|Talk 19:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

insulative paint[edit]

To whom it may concern, How may articles be edited to remove false or misleading information on "insulative paint". The information contained on this page can be shown to be misleading, false and is doing the public a mis-service. I tried to log on as a editor to state views and provide references to valid information and my posts were edited out or deleted. What can be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genwainwright (talk • contribs) 19:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link: Insulative paint

Wikipedia is not a place for you to state your views, it's an encyclopedia. Content in articles should be sourced to reliable sources, should provide a neutral point of view, and must not be promotional in nature. Nor are issues in articles to be discussed on the article page itself, that goes on the talk page. Adding a section that says "the rest of the article is rubbish, here are the real facts" is not in the least encyclopedic. As has been requested, if you have sourced material you'd like to add, write it in a non-promotional and neutral way, and integrate it into the article. Rwessel (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Genwainwright: Firstly, all information added to Wikipedia must have a reliable source to back it up. The edits you made had no such source. Secondly, if you wish to make a potentially controversial change to an article, it is better to first discuss it on the talk page (Talk:Insulative paint in this case). Finally, your edits lead me to believe that you have a conflict of interest in this topic area. It is strongly recommended that you do not edit in the affected area directly, but instead propose changes using {{request edit}}. Feel free to reply with any further questions. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 21:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]