User talk:Taking Out The Trash/Archive 5

Arbcom statement
I agree completely with your comment. My statement focused on another issue but I think yours went straight to the meat of things. Arbcom is about to do something gravely stupid, even by Wikipedia and Arbcom standards. By the way, you may want to make a statement under the general header, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#General_facts if you haven't already. Coretheapple (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked users abusing their talk page
Hello Taking Out The Trash. Blocked users abusing their talk page isn't really a case where page protection is the first response. Modifying the block is the best option and that's what was done for the case you reported. WP:TPA has a bit more on this. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Vijay Kumbhar rejection
Hi. The subject of the article was determined to not be notable due to no citation being provided. It was also deleted as it was in draft for a long time without being edited. I discovered this, made my research and requested for the page to be restored and added sources. More than 20 of them! I also found another page on Wikipedia in which the subject was explicitly named. I'd appreciate a review of your decision or advice. Thank you.

Here is the other page where the subject was mentioned in relation to the context. Manohar Joshi Nuel Jr (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrative action review regarding an action on which you have commented. The thread is Self-requested review of blocks of LTA impersonator accounts. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 20:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Soby
Keep on the watch on the pages Soby is attacking. She's going through her usual excessive proxy sockpuppetting. Luigitehplumber (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank You
I sincerely convey my thanks for watching the page 'Telugu language' and protecting it from vandals. Anandwiki.ind (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Lisa Janet Levy
I was tasked with creating a Wikipedia article for a woman not in Wikipedia for an Honors US History course. If her death is too graphic I understand, I was just trying to be specific. I believe it is important that people realize just how horrific Ted Bundy was so that Hybristophiliacs cannot romanticize him. Hope I'm not in trouble. Fish Gaurdian (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello ,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Page review
Hi @Taking Out The Trash, can you review this draft article Draft:S. S. Karthikeya. Thankyou! Pulmowrites (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Please do not mass post to people's talk pages asking for a specific review. It will be reviewed when someone gets to it. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it, Sorry! Pulmowrites (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Got notice that you reviewed the article, but not change anything in the draft. Pulmowrites (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is an unreleased film with a set release date considered notable enough for acceptance into the mainspace? Pulmowrites (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Films are generally not notable until they have been released and data has been collected/reported on them (unless it's a major enough film that has been hyped up about on a global scale or something like that). Taking Out The Trash (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

FWIW
User:Kinghackxer/sandbox was incredibly WP:G10. Feel free to ping me when you tag such for deletion. Thanks. &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed