Computing desk
< December 9	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference 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 reference desk pages.

December 10

How to set Scroll wheel focus for newly opened folders in Windows 7 ?

Resolved

When I open a folder, in Windows 7, there are two vertical scroll bars, but the scroll wheel on my mouse allways starts out and stays focused on the navigation pane even when the mouse pointer hover over the file name pane.
Q: How may I set the scroll wheel focus to automatically follow where my mouse pointer is hovering?
(or, if that is not possible: how do I set the default focus to be on the file name pane insted of the navigation pane?)
-- 46.15.239.173 (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I use KatMouse to have scroll focus follow my cursor, and it works very well. There are a few programs that it doesn't work with, and elevated windows won't support it, but in most cases it just works. Katie R (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Thank you! :-)
-- (OP) 46.15.70.61 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the best laptop you can get for under $450?

What is the best laptop you can get for under $450? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.60.103 (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Best for what? Value judgements vary enormously depending on particular priorities - how much do you value portability, battery life, screen quality, processing power, graphics, good looks etc.? If you tell us a bit more about which criteria you consider most important we will be able to help you better (please don't say all of them - you can't get all of them for $450, and some of them such as portability vs power, will always be a tradeoff however much you spend). Equisetum (talk | contributions) 11:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of question is best researched at websites such as www.whatlaptop.co.uk where you can choose your own parameters and priorities. There are many similar magazines and websites.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a source

Hi, how do I site a source in a Wikipedia article correctly? Spindocter123 (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The complete guidelines are here Wikipedia:Citing_sources.

The beginner's guide to references is here : Help:Referencing_for_beginners.

And an older tutorial is here : Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing_sources.

Probably the beginners guide is a good place to start. APL (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Windows ActiveX API DATE format

I have to send a date value to an old ActiveX DLL that wants the number as a DATE (as defined in WTypes.h). I believe (although I may be wrong) that this is a double that's equal to the number of seconds since 1 January 1900. Does anyone have any suggestions for a simple way to convert to the DATE type from a more conventional format - time_t, tm, or just Year, Month, Day, Hour, Minute, Second as integers? Minimal use of API calls would be a great advantage. Thanks in advance. Tevildo (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any decent documentation for this DATE type; it's not one of the normal ones windows passes around (SYSTEMTIME and FILETIME). DATE seems to be used in various COM/OLE_Automation APIs, and there's a fairly extensive library for moving things between the types that API knows about - in particular, you may find VarBstrFromDate does something useful (bearing in mind that it yields a BSTR, which is a unicode string preceeded by a 4-byte length). On the off chance that this double contains the same info as a FILETIME (that is "the number of 100-nanosecond intervals since January 1, 1601 (UTC)") then I think this will convert it to a sane SYSTEMTIME struct (which has the actual info you want):

SYSTEMTIME DATE_to_SYSTEMTIME(DATE dt){
  ULARGE_INTEGER i;
  i.QuadPart = (ULONGLONG)floor(dt);

  FILETIME ft = {i.LowPart, i.HighPart};

  SYSTEMTIME st;
  FileTimeToSystemTime(&ft, &st);

  return st;
}

But without a definition of DATE (darned if I know why that's such a big ask of them) who knows. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information (which will come in very useful before long), but at the moment I need to convert _to_ a DATE value. I think I should be able to reverse your routine and drive it with a FILETIME value if necessary, but there may be a more efficient way yet... Tevildo (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That same library of conversion functions has VarDateFromDec which makes a DATE from a DECIMAL - but the same problem pertains, as it doesn't say what that DECIMAL means when converted to a DATE. Grr. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think VarDateFromUDate is what I need. Thanks again for showing me where to look for it. :) Tevildo (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valid URL with three dots in path ( /.../ )

I'm used to seeing long URLs being shortened by replacing part of it with ... , but that's only the link text being displayed, not the URL it links to. So I was surprised to come across this URL: www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/.../UCM119861.pdf which does work when you paste it in the address bar (unless my pc is doing some weird caching). It's likely to confuse people, I first thought I copied the text instead of the link. Is this something recent, part of some scheme, norm, RFC, or typical for some specific webserver or application? I know you can rewrite the path to whatever you want, but it seems unlikely that this was the idea of a local developer or admin, given the .gov domain. Ssscienccce (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

".." commonly means the parent folder. The file at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/.../UCM119861.pdf can also be retrieved at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/../UCM119861.pdf and http://www.fda.gov/downloads/UCM119861.pdf. I guess their server is configured to treat "..." the same as "..". This page can also be accessed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment/../Computing, or "via" a non-existing page like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/NoSuchPage/../Computing. But "..." doesn't work here. This fails: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment/.../Computing. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, mod_rewrite allows an Apache HTTP Server to pre-process any URL using a regular expression parser. This permits a skilled system-administrator to widen the list of valid URLs to almost any conceivable sequence of characters, and to statically or dynamically map those to retrieve specific resources. I do not know whether fda.gov web servers use Apache HTTP or if they use mod_rewrite; but they are evidently using a Content Management System that does allow them to virtualize URLs. Nimur (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, so it's also the same as http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/.././UCM119861.pdf, I had dismissed that possibility because it didn't add any useful functionality... Ssscienccce (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One "." means the current folder so yes, that works by ignoring "/." This also works: http://www.fda.gov/././downloads/././././UCM119861.pdf. It appears any number above two ".." acts the same as "..", so "...." acts as ".." and not as "../.." which would have gone back two folders. I guess it's a matter of interpretation whether to say "/..." works by splitting into "/../." or by shortening to "/..". PrimeHunter (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can make relative wikilinks with "..". [[../]] on this page produces Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing, and [[../Entertainment]] produces Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/Entertainment. But wikilinks like [[./]] or [[.././Entertainment]] don't work. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is my file called?

I created a file called "Bennett.png". It's ready to upload based on directions I was given. However, I don't think "Bennett.png" will be enough.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upload where? Here? If so, then a more descriptive file name would be appropriate. Is Bennett a surname? If so, including the first name and possibly the location or occasion of the photo might be good. Dismas|^(talk) 22:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that I don't know what the name of the file is now. I was told to upload to Commons. But "Bennett.png" is probably not enough. I don't know how to find the full name.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The full description of my problem is here.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The username Vchimpanzee has not uploaded any files, and there is no file called File:Bennett.png. Anyway, the name would be poor as Dismas said. A search [1] shows there are already 1266 files with Bennett in the name (File:Bennett.jpg is poorly named but there were fewer files in 2004). You don't have to give the file a good name on your own computer. You can choose a name in the upload form. But the file must exist on your own computer before you can upload it. I don't understand what you mean by not knowing the name of the file. How are you attempting to upload it without knowing its name? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not what to call it. The issue is what it is called now.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should explain how you lost it or don't know its name because I don't think I'm the only one who is confused about how you can have a file that you don't know the name of. Dismas|^(talk) 22:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I followed their directions. Using Paint I created a file which I saved as "Bennett.png". When I type "Bennett.png" it says no such file. I don't know where there is a list of files in my computer.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 23:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm going to a library tomorrow and I'll start the process from scratch. I can't do this.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 23:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're on a library computer (or were at some point), are you sure that you still actually have the file? If you saved it while working on one of their computers, it is likely still on that computer specifically but probably not on all the computers in that library. If you saved it to a thumb drive of your own, then you should still have it. I'm guessing that you're working on a Windows machine. I am not in front of one now but if memory serves you should be able to go to the Start menu and near the bottom of the menu that pops up there should be a search box. You can use this to search the computer that you're on as well as your thumb drive, if you have one. Just type in what you think is the name of the file or just type in ".png" and it will find all the PNG files. You'll then have to scroll through the results to find your image but you may be able to put them in order by the date that they were saved. If you can do that, you should be able to find it rather quickly since it was saved in just the last few days. Dismas|^(talk) 23:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our logs don't show you have uploaded anything to Wikipedia or Commons, and it also sounds like your upload attempt failed. Maybe you don't know how to select the source file in the upload form. You don't write its name. You click a button so you can select the file on a drive on your computer, using your mouse. At least that's how I do it. You can then write the name it should have at Commons. This name can be different from the selected source file. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you say 'I'm looking at "Bennett.png" right now' does that mean you can locate the icon that represents the file?

If so, try this:

Right-click the icon. Select "properties".
Look for where it says "Location: " and select the text to the right of this. This is best done by right-clicking on the text, and choosing "select all". (If you select by left-clicking instead, you will have to drag to the right to be sure you get it all as it is likely to extend beyond the edge of the window. It should end in "Bennett.png".)
Right-click the selected text and choose "copy".
Paste the result into the file upload box. That is what your file is called, in full, including location. Card Zero (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am at the fourth library and the file is now uploaded. This is the advice I was given at the other place I asked the question (and I can use it the next time). I wasn't getting a response there which is why I came here. At this point it was no longer a Wikipedia question. I emailed the file to User:Nil Einne (who said he never got it) and it was in my sent folder, which is how I retrieved it and converted it to png in my computer.

After clicking Browse, try clicking your first name, then click "Pictures". (If you don't see a "Pictures" option, perhaps you need to click "Documents" first, then "Pictures". I don't have access to a Windows PC to check ATM.) Hopefully your Bennett.png will be listed there – click it.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the image was supposed to show a serious problem with a page? I don't see anything wrong from that screenshot, although you are using the mobile site from what I assume is an ordinary desktop or perhaps laptop which seems a bad idea (even the iPad and I presume other large tablets default to the desktop site). Incidentally, I presume you understand despite all the effort, as the screenshot shows what are likely copyrighted elements of Windows and other software your photo is likely to be deleted on commons and probably unwelcome on wikipedia as well (hence why people recommended you upload it to an external site). 14:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nil Einne (talk • contribs)

Well, for someone who has never seen the mobile site, something like this IS a serious problem, and there are recommendations on the Village Pump. Bing simply said it was a Wikipedia article and so I clicked on it and saw this weird formatting and no way to correct the situation. Regardless of what I was told to do, there are those who SPECIFICALLY said a Wikipedia screenshot should go to Commons. When I get home, I'm going to try the advice above so I can do this next time.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following the advice of User:PartTimeGnome where I first asked the question, I clicked on my first name. Nothing happened. Sometimes you have to double click to get a result. I did when I did that. I double-clicked pictures. The file "C:\Users\xx\Pictures\Bennett.png" came up, xx being my first name. So now I know what to do. When this gets archived I need to link to it so I'll know what to do the next time. Thank you everyone.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: I tried User:Card Zero's advice but all I get by right-clicking where I see the word "Bennett" is Restore, Move, Size, Minimize, Maximize and Close. No "properties".— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That means it's a window, such as the Paint window. It's a window with the title "Bennett" so it's probably displaying the contents of the file, perhaps because you just created it and saved it with that name. I was hoping that instead of looking at Paint you might be looking at File Explorer with the "pictures" directory open. (Isn't it called "my pictures"?) Card Zero (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They dropped the "My" in newer versions of Windows. (Either Vista or Win 7 was the first to omit "My"; I'm not sure which.) – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 21:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, you're right, I never noticed. (Vchimpanzee has Vista.) Card Zero (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you open Paint and choose "save as", it will show you the contents of the directory it is saving pictures to. You can right-click on any of the icons there (they may be thumbnails) or on the blank space around them, to find the location of that directory. Windows tends to hide file paths (and hide them more with each new version), as if they were embarrassing. Card Zero (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on what you were told elsewhere as I have no idea how many different discussions you have opened on this topic although I do know you were told in the original discussion to upload it to external site. But uploading something which is just a wikipedia screenshot is fine. Uploading something which includes UI elements from the non freely licenced OS is not. Your screenshot includes the later. You can't really blame others for not understanding what you were planning to do, particularly if your comments were as unclear as those in the discussions I've seen considering this issue, and in previous discussions you've had.

You could of course remove the UI elements from the screenshot. Except that the problem here actually related to the site you were visiting namely the mobile site so at a minimum you need to keep the URL. Keeping this probably doesn't require keeping elements which would cause copyright concerns but I'm not sure so you'll have to seek feedback from those more experience in dealing with copyright issues. Ultimately given the limited computer usage you've demonstrated in this and in previous threads, it's likely someone else will need to remove the UI elements for you each time and then the older file will need to be deleted. So it's far easier if you simply upload the file to external sites.

IIRC you had problems uploading the file to an external site when it was suggested. Considering you had similar problems uploading the file to commons or emailing it (I never received any emails from you and haven't said the one about the email you couldn't read without replying or forwarding), I don't think this is indicative of problems with the site. In fact, I would suggest most simple images sharing/hostings sites are far easier to upload files to since you don't have to worry about licences, logins or most of the time even giving the file a unique or descriptive name.

And again, I don't see any serious problems with what your shown. It is the wikipedia article, simply viewed from the mobile site rather than the desktop site. Even if you're not experienced with the mobile site, there's nothing wrong with it, simply that it's less suitable for use on desktops. You should perhaps learn to distinguish 'different from what I'm used to' and 'serious problem' as these are very different things and calling everything which is different from what you're used to a 'serious problem' is confusing and just silly.

Probably the main issue with the mobile site is the difficulty visiting talk pages. But it's not like you can't read the text of the article or something which I presume was the primary purpose of visiting the article if you were approaching it from Bing. Heck now that they're turned on mobile editing, it's not like you couldn't edit the page if you wanted to.

(As to why Bing directed you there, I think Bing or for that matter most search engines juat treats the mobile site as a different site with nearly the same content. The desktop site usually gets priority given it's more popular etc but there may be some cases/search strings when the mobile site is more highly ranked for some reason. I'm presuming of course you really were directed there first, rather than for example, actually being direct to the desktop site and you clicked to visit the mobile site or that there had earlier been a link to the desktop site and you chose to visit a later link to the mobile one.)

And when you visit the mobile site as shown at [2] as an example, the site itself at the bottom of the page makes it resonably clear you are at the mobile site (mobile is black and not a link which in ordinary internet parlance means this is where you are now) and you are provide the clear simple option to visit the desktop site using the blue link (in ordinary internet parlance, blue means click on me to visit this). Since you are on the mobile site with limited extra stuff, it's actually very easy to see the mobile/desktop options unlike if you're trying to find the mobile option from the desktop site. So simply reading what you are visiting more carefully rather than spending ages uploading screenshots will likely be a more useful usage of your time in the future.

(By default it's actually very hard to miss particularly on the Bennett College page since the LEDE is so short so there's not that much else to see. But I guess you probably opened most or all of the sections to read the article since that's why you were visiting the site in the first place, and you may have done so before you reached the bottom of the page and so could see the mobile/desktop options. But even in that case, once you reach the bottom it's still not that hard to see the mobile/desktop options.)

Even if you weren't sure that clicking on 'desktop' would take you to what you are used to, the fact that you are on 'mobile' and it looks like something suitable for a small screned mobile device (limited usage of space, each section is hidden until you open it), should tell you that it's worth trying 'desktop' to see if that's what you want. You should remember there's usually no harm simply trying an option a site offers and seeing if it produces the desird outcome and there's no need to seek permission or feedback every single time before you do so.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]