User talk:Taking Out The Trash/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Anime Matsuri controversy

Why did you change from “sparked a lot of controversy” back to “controversially involved” on the anime licensor part of Anime Matsuri’s article? 2600:8801:AB1C:7D00:D04E:49CC:C93D:E3A5 (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I reverted because of the inappropriate edit summary that triggered the edit filter, and the edit itself didn't appear to be anything substantial. Saying "controversially" versus "caused controversy" is a minor detail that doesn't change the meaning of the sentence, and when combined with the inappropriate edit summaries I saw no reason to keep that change. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Hi Taking Out The Trash, I remember you from like a year ago patrolling recent changes because of your really unique name. Didn't realize you took a half year long break afterwards, welcome back to editing and hope you have fun! Justiyaya 17:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Siege of Kalinjar

So can suggest me about trash Suryansh Rathore (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say, but in any case, my concerns with that article appear to have been resolved. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm

Please keep your eyes open. Report such vandals. Reverting is useless; you'll just get reverted and that means more for us admins to clean up. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The page is already at RFPP - there was some serious edit filter log flooding even before the recent actual edits that went through. Don't think it's directly related to the recent hijacking of articles related to "Chandler" (not sure what's going on there), though at least one IP did both types of vandalism. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

What did I JUST ask you. Stop reverting. It's more work for us. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see how not reverting vandalism is beneficial in any way, but I'll sign off for the night now and let you admin folks handle it. I have no idea what's going on but this is clearly a coordinated mass attack based on something off-wiki. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is. If you revert, they revert right back. If you check, you will find that the content needs to be rev-deleted; the more reverts, the more pleasure the troll gets from their work, and the more versions we have to rev-delete. It's counterintuitive but it's true. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Apparently there's a whole bunch of people with nothing better to do behind this. See my talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Rather too active, perhaps with Bots

Can I suggest you wait a reasonable time as all articles need time if written by humans to be referenced and expanded. Having an article that resulted from incidental discovery that certain basic anatomical features of a class of organism which has over 15,000 different species was poorly described by wikipedia marked for you by deletion with in a few hours when I was working to improve 5 other associated articles with higher priority is irritating. ChaseKiwi (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not a bot. Secondly, if you need additional time to prepare articles, you should create them in draftspace where they can be expanded/improved pretty much indefinitely as long as you are continuing to edit them (the one exception is drafts that haven't been edited in six months may be deleted). When you publish an article in the live main space, it should already be "as complete as its going to be" by the author. Substandard articles in the live main space may be moved to draft space, or proposed for deletion. However, a proposed deletion tag, like the one I put on the article in question here, does not imply any wrongdoing on your part, and is simply an indication that the article needs to be substantially improved if it is to remain published in main space. You have seven days from when the deletion tag is added to improve the article, at which point you can simply remove the deletion tag (like you did), with one exception for biographies of living people. In most cases, you can even remove the deletion tag without improving the article if you feel it is already up to standard, though 9 times out of 10 in those situations the article will end up getting sent to WP:AFD.

Moral of the story: if you know that an article is not complete/fully up to standard, don't publish it in the live main space. Create it as a draft or a subpage in your user space, and then move it to the main space when it is ready. Anything in the main space is subject to all applicable policies and may be marked for deletion. If you really need to have an in progress work in the main space, you should place {{in use}} or {{under construction}} at the top of the page, which will direct new page patrollers to ignore that page. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Tagging Talk pages for speedy deletion

Hello, Taking Out The Trash,

Just FYI, but unless a Talk page is an orphaned Talk page, it doesn't need to be tagged for deletion if the Article page is also tagged for deletion. Many admins patrolling CSD categories use Twinkle to delete pages and when it deletes an Article page, it also deletes the Talk page and any Redirects. But if you happen to see an orphaned Talk page, please tag it CSD G8 speedy deletion. Many thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Jimmy hails peace

Thanks for being around at the right time, and for helping. It would have been a bumpy ride otherwise! :) --Coldtrack (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Not a bot nor a problem

Hi Taking Out The Trash, I fell for the impression first too. In response to Special:Diff/1122497351, Tacoszappa is an edit-a-thon participant welcoming other participants. Do feel free to inform participants about username concerns, though, or report to WP:UAA in severe cases. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment

Personally I might've left it open, although I'm not sure if it was passing, because discussion was ongoing (Suffusion/MA might've responded further), and I think a permissions request deserves a conclusive answer. As does the whole loutsock thing, as I don't think it's fair to be in a limbo position of 'too guilty to be innocent' and 'too innocent to be guilty'.

But if you genuinely wanted to withdraw I think that's respectable. There are other areas you can participate in, and to be honest non-Wikipedia things you can get involved in. There are a lot of projects in the technical space which would appreciate newcomers (GitHub alone hosts 28 million of them). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

As I noted in my closing statement, even if it did ultimately pass it would've been such a controversial appointment that I wouldn't have felt good about it. As for the whole socking thing: frankly I think it should be irrelevant at this point - the allegations are almost a year old and therefore would definitely be considered "stale" if it was to be investigated fresh today. As I also noted in the discussion, I don't see the correlation between "this user may have possibly edited while logged out a year ago" and "this user can be trusted to not leak the details of private filters". Those two concepts seem completely unrelated to me. It seemed like it was starting to go around in circles and that nobody was taking me seriously because of that, and the discussion around socking was derailing and distracting the conservation from the point at hand. It wasn't an easy decision to withdraw, and it took me several attempts to craft that closing statement, but at the end of the day I felt (and still feel) that it was the best course of action. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Political user names

Re the username warning you posted here. I don't think it is correct that usernames showing support for dictatorial regimes is against policy. In any case, this user name is not overtly showing support for any particular dictatorship. SpinningSpark 22:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Il Gallo Lungo

Hi, i saw the copyright template you put on this page i wrote: i moved the content from the version you mentioned in the template. I just wanted to ask what's the issue with moving a section from one page to another, Thank you. Borteddd (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

"The other section" in this case isn't a Wikipedia article. You can't move (i.e. copy and paste) content from another non-Wikipedia source into a Wikipedia article, unless said other source is released into the public domain or under Creative Commons. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi

I saw your edit on the wikipage I was working on. I understand why, I assumed it was some kid who was doing (wikipedia authorized?) homework so I was trying to slowly clean it up for them. Not trying to be snarky or promote edit warring! Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Revert

Thank you for trying to clean up, but this wasn't right, and could have been avoided if you had looked at the actual edits you reverted. Thank you. 199.80.8.254 (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Your initial edit summaries did indeed trigger the edit filter, because of the word "crap" and the phrase "what a mess". Those kind of strong terms are not usually necessary. Your edits were reverted solely because of the inappropriate edit summaries. I have no objection to you or anyone else reinstating them with an appropriate edit summary, and they will be judged on their merits by someone else. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi. That wasn't an appropriate use of the rollback tool, per WP:ROLLBACKUSE, and someone writing "what a mess" or "crap" in an edit summary is a pretty poor rationale for reverting anyway. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: List of Color Computer 1 and 2 Games from Tandy

Hello Taking Out The Trash. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of List of Color Computer 1 and 2 Games from Tandy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to software. Thank you. BangJan1999 23:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Taking Out The Trash. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

5 Infantry Battalion

Hi there TOTT, I saw the 'close paraphrasing' tag you added to the recently created page 5 Infantry Battalion, since you added the tag I have edited the page considerably and added further information from another source. I don't have any authority so I can't judge whether the tag should be removed or not, so I was wondering if you'd be able to take another look over the page and decide. If the article needs any further editing or improvement that you can suggest, simply say. Thanks very much. PixelatedGalaxy (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Copyright stuff isn't really my strong suit so you're probably better off asking someone else. I applied the tag after reviewing the copyright violation detector provided to new page patrollers at Special:NewPagesFeed, because it showed significant overlap (at least paraphrasing if not downright copying) from the source in question, and the source in question didn't appear to be freely licensed at first glance. But again, if you want more information, you'll need to contact someone with more experience in the nitty gritty details of copyright rules. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks anyway. PixelatedGalaxy (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)