This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. ( T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. ( T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see the page thoroughly on why I nominated it as nonsense:

1. Logo is a made up from SriLankan Airlines. 2. Yanson Group of Bus Companies haven't bought the company. See link: http://data.gov.ph/catalogue/dataset/provincial-bus-franchises-2015 on the data on Bus Companies in the Philippines. 3. No evidences or photos given as a proof of its existence.

Thanks! Bumbl_loid 14:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The nonsense criterion is not for inaccuracy of info. It's only for things like "twenty just golf aardvark treetop famished" or "ythghjghghnb gghghghgfffggf". That is, it's for things that make no sense at all in English or any other language. This article may be totally incorrect, but it is readable. You could try db-hoax (giving reasons on the talk page), or AfD. If you find AfD hard to handle, get back to me and I'll do it for you. Peridon ( talk) 15:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I've taken the 'ref' tags off your link - on a talk page it's best to give the link straight. Otherwise, it sinks to the bottom of the page and stays there and becomes a nuisance. Peridon ( talk) 15:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! You were right on finding it hard to put an AfD for that article. What is the right thing to do for that article to be closed.....or at least to be nominated for deletion? Bumbl_loid 15:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Give me a reason to put at the top (with a ref) so I can copy it over, and I'll put it at AfD. I'm having doubts myself and will give my opinion there. Peridon ( talk) 15:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I've taken the AfD notice off to clear the decks. Peridon ( talk) 15:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The logo of "Advanced Liner" was a made up from SriLankan Airlines with few edits made to the logo's color. Second, there are no news clippings, evidences, nor proof that Husky Tours was bought and sold over to Yanson Group of Bus Companies. Third, given the data by the data(dot)gov(dot)ph, Husky Tours still exist and their franchise wasn't sold to Yanson Group. Bumbl_loid 15:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Now at WP:Articles for deletion/Advanced Liner. If you think you're likely to be taking things to AfD, get Twinkle WP:TWINKLE. It makes it so much easier for tagging and AfD. Peridon ( talk) 15:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks mate! Big help. Bumbl_loid 16:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a direct copy from http://www.wikihow.com/Get-Unblocked-from-Wikipedia step 4. If they're that clueless... Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 13:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Ta. But are they actually blocked? Peridon ( talk) 13:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Just seen your remark there... Hmmm..... Peridon ( talk) 13:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I actually blocked them in one window while I was searching for that string in another... I'm just about to unblock again. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 13:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I recognize that you saw my page as unfinished, thats because its a semester long work in progress for a college course. We had to assign ourselves an influential environmental justice group (the class is in the environmental studies department) and either create or add on to an existing wikipedia page for them. In order to comply with the Wikiedu tasks we had to assign our username to the article and since CCSCLA didnt exist we had to create the page. The assignment is an effort to create some representation for these highly influential groups that get looked over because they work atthe intersection of race, class, gender, and environmental sustainability. CCSCLA is one of the most influential environmental justice books, often cited in many environmental studies textbooks. Their most notable achievement was the hault of the LANCER incinerator construction in Los Angeles that would cause health issues for residents of the surrounding community. We will be creating an encyclopedia style entry (up to all the wiki standards we are doing trainings in) with many cited sources (our annoted bibliographies were due today actually ive got 10+ sources lined up if you want to see them) and a non partial and non promotional writing style. Like I said its a work in progress and will be completed by the end of april. We will be constructing the page in my sandbox but we need the page to exist in order to do so in compliance with the wikiedu assign your article task.

Mtlang13 ( talk) 05:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It's now at User:Mtlang13/Concerned Citizens of South Central LA. Don't forget to read the policies linked on your talk page, and don't forget that not all subjects pass the notability requirements, no matter how influential they may seem locally, and no matter what college lecturers may think.... Please understand that while there may be collaboration between students, an account on Wikipedia is for one person only and passwords must not be shared. Avoid any signs of enthusiasm in the article. Don't move it into article space, or it is likely to be deleted again by someone. The places for article creation over a period of time are user space or the Draft: space. Once it gets past the showing notability stage, it could go into user space, but then you'll find gnomes invading and tidying things up. If you want (or need) it to be 'all our own work', it should be kept out of article space until the work is done. As I often point out, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and while educational projects are welcomed (usually...) they must work to the standards set. Stands to sense, really - if you get away with a lesser standard, you haven't learned how to do it properly anyway. OK. It's safe from the patrollers where it is, as regards notability, but do avoid looking like attack, hoax, copyright violation, or advertising/promotion. They can tag anywhere for those. And do. Promo is the danger. So many people now are accustomed to estate agent/realtor wording, and the excesses of other PR jargon, that they use the junk speek sic because they think that's how it should be. Look at what you write, and think, "Would I find this in a brochure, or on a website home page? Or would I find it in the Britannica?". Simplicity and neutrality are the keys. Good luck. Peridon ( talk) 12:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you'll notice my response to your message on my talk page, so I'll also post it here: A3 applies to an article that "consists only of external links". List of sex gangs has no text, 27 external links, 11 links to other Wikipedia articles. While that's not "only" external links, it's over 70%. Chrisahn ( talk) 11:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I have added some reliable independent sources and removed all the marketing/enthusiastic statements. I would really appreciate this page to be available again. Thank you. Mtix ( talk) 14:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Mtix

I'm feeling a bit shattered at the moment, so I'll ping @ Ritchie333: to see if he'll have a look. I'm not too sure about the notability, but I wouldn't delete it as an article either. Can't remember why I userfied it, either - you may have asked me to. Ritchie, it's at User:Mtix /Lucid Samples if you could have a look. Thanks. (I do seem to have an extraneous space in that title - that's where it is, anyway.) Peridon ( talk) 19:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Good evening, @ Ritchie333: and @ Peridon:! Are there any updates? I would really like the page Lucidsamples back online. Thank you for understanding.

I'll try @ MelanieN: - she was away before but she'll be back now. A very good rescuer and improver. Peridon ( talk) 17:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I took a look. Frankly I doubt whether this article would pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG, which are the requirements for having an article here. The deleted article had five references; the new page has 11; that is pretty much the only difference so it really isn't much improved. More of a problem, the new references are not independent. They are mostly sources from LucidSamples itself, plus a couple of interviews with specialty blogs. So they do not meet our requirement for independent reliable sources, which means significant coverage from outside sources like newspapers or magazines. If you can find any such outside coverage, add it and we'll talk. But for now I would not encourage restoring the article. It would only get deleted again (it's been deleted twice already), and you don't want it to get a history of being repeatedly deleted; that can result in the title getting locked to prevent repeated re-creation. Maybe wait a bit until the company receives more coverage or recognition and try again then. Sorry I couldn't be more help. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your advices. You see, the company is still growing and gets more attention. So, as far as I understand it is the best to wait for independent, more reliable and bigger media to to set their eyes on Lucidsamples and then to put links from their articles on Wiki. Please note that lesser technical, specialty blogs are in many cases a better reference than a big magazine where everyone can appear after spending enough money. One more question: WP:GNG do not specify how big should be the entity giving "notability credit". Can I assume that one or two worldwide media plus growing number independent brand blogs or magazines will do good?

On the other hand Wikipedia is not only a source of well spread knowledge about big companies or venues. It works also as a place of reference for smaller ones. Kind regards, Mtix ( talk) 09:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hope all's well. Could you compare this draft you deleted a couple of weeks ago, with this current sandbox draft? There's something a bit funny going on; as you see, the subject is the same, but the current edition is a COI / autobiography written, he says, by himself (and of course that's another matter). But the previous one was created by socks [1]. So it would be interesting to establish the relationship between them all. If you could compare the two drafts, that would be a great help. Take care! O Fortuna! ^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 09:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The text is different, but both are pure and unadulterated spam. I would say they're from the same agency, one that can't get the idea that advertising and promo are not going to get onto Wikipedia into its collective head. I don't think it's him himself - the PR guff is to PR for a doctor. As it is, I'd say tag anything on this subject that looks the least bit promo as both promo and by a blocked or banned author. Leave a note explaining this on the talk page, as not all admins will know about it. I think he might have paid them for an article, and they're having trouble delivering. Could be wrong - he could be a blagger as well as a doctor. Personally, I can't see why there is this fascination in the US for the 'hourglass' figure anyway. I've never had a girlfriend shaped like that. I prefer them to look natural and real (and not be wearing about three layers of makeup too). Peridon ( talk) 20:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)