Help desk
< October 17	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 19 >

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.

October 18[edit]

Dark Skin Gadget Use a black background with green text on the Monobook skin is not fully working properly[edit]

Hello,

There is an issue with the following gadget: 'Use a black background with green text on the Monobook skin'. The issue is that the page MediaWiki:Gadget-Blackskin.css is not updated to work properly with wikipedia's design.

Basically, the gadget is outdated at this time, causing breakage of appearance. For instance, 1) the sidebar remains blue-text-on-white, 2) the background remains white, and 3) the table of contents remains blue-on-white.

You can test by enabling the gadget yourself, and the issues should appear on any computer. As this gadget provides a high-contrast theme for users, I'd like to request that the gadget be updated to fix these issues. X.A.N.A. the Evil Virus (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To reproduce: the gadget only appear in the list of Gadgets in Special:Preferences if MonoBook is selected as the default skin in Appearance - as per the gadget definition (only available on MonoBook). Changing skins disables the gadget. Additionally some things overlap in the wgLogo area if one has this enabled - in a way that two site logos are shown and you can't click on some sidebar items. CC WP:Village pump (technical) fully described the issue --Arseny1992 (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Making a table of information.[edit]

Draft:The Other Love Story

I have created an article for The Other Love Story, a webseries. How do I make a table with a title card and information such as cast and production team on the right side of the article?Theotherlovestory (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Theotherlovestory: Use Template:Infobox podcast. Click on that link for the syntax and supported parameters. —teb728 t c 07:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Theotherlovestory: Actually Template:Infobox web series is the correct one. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Template:Infobox web series is a redirect to Template:Infobox podcast. —teb728 t c 08:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

teb728, FWIW, this user was blocked by another admin under our spam username policy, and an appeal was declined. I'd already deleted the article The Other Love Story as non-notable, but could equally have been for promotion by an obviously COI editor. I've left the draft for now since you have edited it Jimfbleak (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest guidance[edit]

Hi Wikipedians

In my professional capacity working for the House of Lords I have been asked to consider editing articles on House of Lords select committees. As a WP:COI issue clearly arises, I have been reviewing that guidance. However, as we are a non-profit institution, and our public domain records are the sole primary source of most committee information, I'm hoping I can make more direct edits than the guidance suggests (rather than constantly making 'suggested changes' on talk pages). My intentions are:

To create a new account, as allowed under WP:VALIDALT, but personal to me (WP:NOSHARE)
To declare the interest on that user page and the talk pages of relevant articles (WP:DISCLOSE)
To make simple edits to existing articles within two classes:
- Making factual, NPOV, referenced edits with where the records of the House are the primary source and are in the public domain (for example, updating membership lists)
- Conducting basic maintenance defined as uncontroversial under WP:COIU

For reassurance, I do not intend:

To edit existing content where it is current and correct
To use Wikipedia as a platform for PR
To create new articles for new committees where no demand exists, as my COI may impact my views on WP:NOTE

Please could those with knowledge of WP:COI give me some feedback on this plan?

Ejgm 11:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejgm (talk • contribs)

My first (minor) comment on this is that I don't believe that the British House of Lords would be considered a "Non profit institution" as Wikipedia defines the term. My second is that your level of preparation for this work is better than almost *anyone* else I've seen in 10 years on Wikipedia. (Bravo!) (I've known people who have been on Wikipedia as solid editors for years who haven't worked through all of those policy articles.) And I'd suggest posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (which appears to be both politics and government) for specific questions. I look forward to your contributions to wikipedia, you've gotten off to a wonderful start!Naraht (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ejgm, you are the perfect example of why direct paid edition is allowed. Most likely, you will only improve the encyclopedia, and having you go through the "requested edits" process would be a pointless loss of time for everyone involved.

You did not quote it, but I think you fall under WP:PAID if the editing is part of your job. As a consequence, disclosure of the conflict of interest is mandatory, not just recommended, and some templates are mandatory (WP:PAID has it all explained).

Since you seem OK with a second account, I suggest you create it with an explicit name (such as User:Ejgm (paid by HoL)), which you should use for all the potentially COI edits (and only those). A side benefit is that you could then use contribution logs for this account to show to your employer should they ask.

Notice also that (per WP:VALIDALT) ~~sockpuppet~~ alternative account notifications must go both ways, i.e. the paid-edit account user page must disclose it is ~~the sockpuppet of~~ linked to the usual account and reciprocally. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ejgm, I'm impressed! Just to clarify, although I understand what Tigraan means, he should have said "alternative account" since "sockpuppet" implies nefarious intent, which is surely not what he intended. I agree that you should use the {{Paid}} template, which is mandatory, as stated by Tigraan. I regularly post such a warning to obviously paid editors, usually after deleting their articles, so you can be ahead of the game on this! Jimfbleak (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to all who have commented - we'll see what happens next. Ejgm (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you didn't get a response to your posting at the wikiproject. As otherwise suggested, I agree that an alternate account as by others is a good idea, I'd create that, connect the accounts and put the paid notice on the user page for the two accounts, make a few edits using it and comment back here and I (and presumably others) will let you know if we see any issue. Does that work as a plan?Naraht (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_frivolity>

You might consider adding a paragraph about " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.168.19 (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you intended to suggest, IP user, but the best place to make the suggestion is on the talk page Talk:Tactical frivolity. You could even add whatever it is to the article yourself, preferably with citations to reliable published sources. --ColinFine (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Month[edit]

Is there a page set up for 2016 Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the first to ask this, TonyTheTiger: See Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Asian Month#WAM 2016. Unfortunately, I'm not able to answer either of your. --ColinFine (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link you included takes us back to WAM 2015.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger. I linked to the talk page, to the section I meant. I'm puzzled as to what you thought my link was. --ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine Actually, you didn't. I corrected your link based on my guess of what you meant.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Apologies, TonyTheTiger. --ColinFine (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]