Talk:Trashy Bags

arithmetic doesn't quite work out
The article says:

"The company has recycled approximately 20 million sachets since its start in 2007 to prevent large environmental damage. Every month nearly 200,000 plastic sachets are collected and brought to Trashy Bags by a network of collectors [...]"

I'm writing in early February of 2013.

2013 – 2007 = 6 years

6 years × 12 months/year = 72 months (could have been 73 months if they started in January of 2007)

72 months × nearly 200000 sachets/month = nearly (meaning less than) 14,400,000 sachets ≈ 14 million not 20 million

If they are collecting fewer sachets than they used to, then it makes sense.

24.24.214.15 (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Message box about repeated past COI edits
An editor originally nominated this article for deletion (or "incubation"), mainly on the basis that two people connected with the organisation had previously edited the article extensively. (It's my understanding that one of the two people was an unpaid volunteer who had travelled to Africa to help the NGO in that person's gap year.) The result of the AfD was Keep.

The same editor who nominated the article for deletion, has now repeatedly  inserted a custom header at the top of the article, making the totally unique assertion that "In the past, this article has repeatedly attracted biased edits." (emphasis in original)

This custom article header is without precedent, and without purpose. It does not belong on this article, nor any other. I am removing it.

As has been customary regarding changes to this article, and changes elsewhere, I welcome discussion of these changes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Hi Demiurge1000. Hi all. My most recent revision of the message box looked fairly similar to the following, but with a thin border around it.

The article has indeed attracted biased/COI edits, made by: These users have edited the article on 23 November 2010, 24 November 2010, 4 November 2011, 7 November 2011, 27 January 2012, and 3 July 2012. So, yes, this article, like many others, has repeatedly attracted biased edits. Earlier this year, and I spent our time removing puffery and COI content. I would have preferred if nobody had added the content in the first place. The COI content stayed up for a long time. The article needs more watchers. Toolserver.org has been acting flaky lately, but if it's working again, check out how few watchers the article has. Demiurge1000: My dear sir, the box had a purpose. Its main purpose was not to scare future COI editors, but to get more Wikipedians to watchlist the page. For what other reasons don't you like it? And can you suggest any better ways to attract more watchers? Dear all: Do you like or dislike the box? Kind regards, &mdash;Unforgettableid (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * , and
 * , and
 * Thank you for letting me know about the thin border. You could post at the village pump requesting more watchers, if you like. There might be noticeboards aimed specifically at people who want to keep COI editors from affecting the neutrality of articles, but I don't know of any. (WP:COIN is not applicable in this case.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I propose to instead restore the box; the box can stay in place for far longer than any Village Pump thread. Demiurge1000, dear sir, do you have any remaining valid arguments against the box? Also, would you like to move this discussion to another venue? If so, which? Dear others: Do you like or dislike the box? If you dislike it, why? Cheers, &mdash;Unforgettableid (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you, as the person who originally added the box, to establish a consensus in support of it, before restoring it. Please do not do so without such a consensus being established. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My dear sir: You claimed that the box is "without purpose". I objected, and explained the purpose. It seems I am winning the debate. Is there any reason why you dislike the box, other than "It has no purpose"? If you provide no reason, then I do indeed plan to restore it. Kind regards, &mdash;Unforgettableid (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't add the box back. Don't add this box to any other pages as you already have done.  There is no reason to have it as it does  nothing.  It is not going to stop people to add anything they want.  ALL PAGES have problems with vandalism and to a lesser extent COI.  We don't go around tagging all pages not to vandalize.  We only tag if there is currently a problem, not if there might be a problem.  There is no consensus to add tags for might be problems.  There is no consensus here to add the tag.


 * To both of you, if anyone of reverts the other's edit or add/delete the tag, you will be blocked for edit warring. This is more of warning to Unforgettableid as you were asked for consensus for an unusual edit. Saying you are winning a debate between you and another person is not winning.  Bgwhite (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)