Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 51

This 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.

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

→

User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers

Do userspace drafts qualify for ARS review? ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, by posting here you've provided noticed to any watchers who are interested. I don't understand why people care to seek deletion of userspace material like this. I don't even understand what rules apply if any, except that attack pages don't belong. Even if I didn't think the subpage here belongs in the mainspace like this, from what I can tell it might prove useful to users trying to improve other mainspace articles in the future. Or it may be morphed by someone in the future to something usuable in parts or in whole.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This caught my interest; I didn't think that one could nominate an article in userspace for deletion unless it violates policies by being an attack page or some such. How do I confirm that there actually was an article in userspace nominated for deletion? Guy Macon 22:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I should have posted the current MFD in my original message Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Lady_Aleena/Television/Crossovers_(2nd_nomination). ArcAngel (talk) ) 23:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I reviewed the page and the Wikipedia policies that are being referenced in relation to deleting it. Ad far as I can tell, all the policies we need to examine are at WP:USERPAGES and and WP:POTENTIAL. Is there any other place I should be looking?

For the record, are you working towards making a page to eventually become part of Wikipedia? If so, are there any particular areas that the Rescue Squadron could help to improve that would move it towards being finished? As I understand the goal of ARS, we are here to find and improve worthy articles that can be improved rather than deleted. I see no reason why a worthy article can't be found in userspace.

Now for your part. You need to make a case explaining why the article should be rescued and how that could happen. Explain how the finished page will fit in on Wikipedia, how it will meet all the requirements concerning notability, no original research, reliable sources, etc. Then lay out a plan for making this happen and explain how ARS can help. Guy Macon 04:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I had never seen the draft before I was informed that it was nominated. I glanced over it, and it contains some information which might be interesting to some, but I hadn't really planned on doing anything with it. And from the way the MFD is going, it looks like it is going to survive it, so I guess ARS' involvement is moot at this point. ArcAngel (talk) ) 04:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The current {{ARSnote}} reads

"Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron."
I feel
"Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged for the Article Rescue Squadron to review."

is less misleading as people not associated with the ARS could have put the tag on and people not associated with ARS could do any rescuing. The phrase "flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron" implies ARS added the tag and are the ones who will do the rescue work when that does not seem to be true all the time. I tried to change this but another user has deleted the change so I'm asking at your page for someone else to see if this is a good change. 71.139.31.153 (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. You're just reading it wrong. You're reading it as if it's saying that an ARS member flagged the article. It's almost as if you're removing the "for rescue" part and reading it as "The article under discussion here has been flagged by the Article Rescue Squadron". This is not what it is saying. It is saying that the article under discussion has been flagged — — — for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron. In other words, it's saying that the rescue will be by the ARS, not that the flagging was done by them necessarily. This is an extraordinarily minor issue that is not worth edit-warring over, nor is it even worth discussing at any length, in my opinion. This template is never used in article space, only in a very small proportion of deletion discussions. Also, I'm pretty sure I'm just about the only person who even uses this template regularly. Let's get back to doing something worthwhile here and stop wasting everyone's time. SnottyWong ^spout 23:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but I think the IP is right--it can be reasonably read in two different ways, so rewording it so that the less correct meaning is no longer viable isn't a bad idea. Jclemens (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It says "flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squad" as if the ARS tagged it and will rescue it. I think it should be clear that the note is only informing that a tag has been added in hopes that the ARS will look at it. You deleted the change and now call my concern a waste of time, how cordial! This is an encyclopedia so needs to use the English language clearly and neutrally. The wording seemed off to me so i boldly fixed it and you edit-warred. If I'm reading it wrong I bet others are as well. 71.139.31.153 (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If there's a consensus to change the wording because the precise meaning of it is ambiguous, then that's fine, but I think the alternate wording you propose above is worse than the original wording. And the reason I characterized this discussion as a waste of time is that the wording of this template will not affect/help/change the encyclopedia whatsoever. Also, since I am practically the only one who uses this template regularly, if you change it to something I don't like then the result will be that no one uses it. (Note that I'm not claiming ownership of the article, nor am I saying that I will stop notifying deletion discussions when an article is rescue-tagged if you change the wording of the template (didn't want to get your hopes up)). If you don't like the wording of the template, why not just create a new one whose wording you like better, and use that one for yourself? SnottyWong ^gab 00:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, I'm not going to use that template anymore. Change it as much as your heart desires, I won't revert you. Cheers. SnottyWong ^chat 00:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

*lol* Why am I suddenly suspicious? ^_^ - ManicSpider (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

How about "Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged for review by the Article Rescue Squadron." --Nuujinn (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It can be read either way very easily. I looked at the template, and that got me to read the TfD discussion from last June. In that discussion there was a recommendation to make a similar change due to concerns of the wording being easily misinterpreted. 3 out of 4 people who commented agreed with changing the wording to be less open to misinterpretation. I would support a change to say An editor has flagged the article under discussion..., but the discussion should really take place on the template talk page. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 02:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You could also word it as "Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged by an editor for rescue and review by the Article Rescue Squadron." Silver seren^C 02:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be fine, but I think that Jim Miller's comment is well taken, we really should take this to the template talk page. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

We could just copy this entire section over there. It would probably be for the best, really. Silver seren^C 02:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I like Nuujinn's wording the best and agree that once we have a better wording this whole discussion can be moved there. 71.139.31.153 (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)````

I updated the note to read "Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron." I didn't put "for review and rescue" as I think that would imply ARS would rescue it no matter what and in reality ARS just reviews it to see if it could be rescued. 71.139.31.153 (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That was far too quick a change, thre is no consensus yet. Personally, I oppose the move to change the template. The original woring is perfectly clear to a reasonable person - that the wording might be read wrong by a very few people isn't a valid reason to change it, IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The overall comments here are that a change for clarity is appropriate and would help clear up any misinterpretation. If you have a better wording please propose that so the concerns raised are addressed. Otherwise it seems you favor the version that implies ARS tagged the article and will rescue it no matter what. That's not accurate.71.139.13.248 (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Bushranger, I oppose the change too, but since no one actually uses that template, it's not worth fighting about. I used to be the only one who used the template, but now that 71 is making it his/her life goal to awkwardly reword it, I'm no longer going to use it. Might as well delete it at this point. SnottyWong ^confer 15:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So you are in favor of a template being misleading? That would be directly opposite of what a template is for.

I support changing the wording to something unambiguous. The current wording is not clear, and can be read in a different way than it is intended to be. It should not be that hard to come up with some wording that cannot be construed by anyone as meaning that the ARS did the tagging. Who tags an article for rescue is completely irrelevant to any deletion discussion anyway, so there is no need to use wording that can be read in a manner that would indicate who tagged it. Frankly, nothing more is needed than the current wording of {{afdrescue}}, but I appreciate that {{ARSnote}} helps promote the work of the ARS. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 18:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think *Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for the Article Rescue Squadron to review. is less ambiguous and may also address the expressed concern that the current revision is awkward. 71.139.13.248 (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Researching deletions and pending deletions.

I have a question that pertains to doing research on deleted pages. This pertains to ARS because looking at past rescue attempts (successful and failed) is a good way to learn how to be more effective at rescuing in the future.

Earlier today I reverted a change to Speedcubing (IP user changed world record, but official world site does not agree). Then I ran into something strange that makes me think my Wikipedia research methods are somehow faulty. Look at this redlinked page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feliks_Zemdegs

which says:

"12:50, 26 August 2010 DragonflySixtyseven deleted "Talk:Feliks Zemdegs" (attempt to communicate)"

Not sure what "attempt to communicate" means...

Looking at the log here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=DragonflySixtyseven

I see that DragonflySixtyseven deletes a lot of user talk pages, often more than one per minute. Looking at his talk page, it looks like most or all of the deletions were justifiable (hint: search for "DS (talk)", not "DragonflySixtyseven" to find his comments), but I wanted to look at a few at random and see for myself. That's where I ran into a problem. I cannot figure out how to see and review what got deleted. What am I missing? Guy Macon 20:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can. Also, I found so many things "deleted for user's own good" and articles deleted as "not yet notable" (with no AfD or Prod?) that I hope you find the answer. I'd like to check out some of those pages. - ManicSpider (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

A quick look through his talk page is interesting as well... - ManicSpider (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please take a quick look at WP:OUTING, and I would suggest taking these concerns to an admin board, this really isn't the venue for such discussions. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I also note that DragonflySixtyseven appears to be an admin, you all may want just to ask them what's what. There are deletions that are not the result of afd or prod, including a variety of speedies. Deleted material is not visible to the general user population here. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Just remember that any admin has been here a lot longer than you, so you should probably give them the benefit of the doubt. Also, posting an IP address along with the identity of the person you believe is using it is considered very rude. I've deleted your sentence above where you do just that, as it is tangential to the story. SnottyWong ^express 23:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I wasn't aware of that, but I can see why one shouldn't link an IP with a name now that you bring it up. Thank you for editing it out of what I wrote. Guy Macon 05:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Typically when people complain on my talk page, I answer them on their talk page. This may wrongly provide the impression that I am ignoring complaints. To address certain issues:

When I deleted talk:Feliks Zemdegs as 'attempt to communicate', this was because it was a small child attempting to communicate with Feliks Zemdego ("i think u r amazing!!!!! i am doing a homework project and its about people who have had success. i really want to do it on u, and..."). This sort of thing happens more often than you might expect.
"For user's own good" - I used to be on OTRS. We would get e-mail every day from people begging us to please delete the humiliating userpages they had created about themselves and which had now spread to Wikimirrors (where we no longer have any control over the content). It is content which, in my judgment, could ruin the user's life. If at any point a user disagrees with my assessment, they are welcome to replace the material. However, in most such cases, they left Wikipedia five minutes after posting the page and showing it to their friends.
"Not yet notable" - for garage bands and the like, this is a more friendly way of saying "not notable". It implies that I'm sure they WILL become notable, someday. Real soon now, in fact. And when that day comes, and they are signed with a major label/publisher/studio and are hugely successful and famous, THEN we will have an article about them. But not yet!
Oh, and for the most part I don't delete usertalk. Userpages, yes. Usertalk, no. DS (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if what I said was rude, I was purely curious about the sheer number and the odd edit summaries. In retrospect, my comment regarding your talk page reads meaner than I meant it - I simply meant that if people looked at your talk page they could see that you had been asked questions on this topic a lot before and answered them. I'm assuming the not notable yets were speedy deletes. To clarify, I wasn't trying to suggest you were some sort of one man deletionist conspiracy :-) - ManicSpider (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Most any admin who actively closes AfDs or PRODs will get some casual editors or IP editors on their talk page with concerns about why "their" article was deleted.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

User:guymacon, don't be cowed by appeals to authority.

Here on wikipedia, editors who have little respect for other editors contributions, put in power other editors with those same views. A small group of like minded people decide who will be in leadership. This problem is only getting worse, with a slew of disrespectful editors elected to adminship.

Unfortunately, there is no viable long term solution to this problem as it starts at the very top with Wales negative attitude towards editor's contributions.

Watching, learning, and imitating the passive aggressive tactics of veteran administrators and leadership will only get you banned, as these editors have vast networks off and on wikipedia which you could not possibly duplicate. In addition, the same rules they will aggressively enforce against you, do not apply to them, as these contributors consistently and successfully violate policy without sanction.

Okip 22:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:TINC may be interesting reading for you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I used to wonder if there were such cabals. Then, I got elected to ArbCom, solely on the basis of my on-wiki contributions, without any off-wiki canvassing, any IRC secret handshakes, or anything else. The fact that I got selected by the community definitively eviscerates the notion of a cabal in my mind, since no cabal would want me. :-) Jclemens (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What Okip describes does not match my experience with Wikipedia. In particular, I have found Wikipedia admins to be fair and helpful. My experience has been that whenever someone points me toward a Wikipedia policy or guideline, I almost always end up concluding that the policy/guideline makes a lot of sense. I then follow it, not because some authority ordered me to do so, but because it looks like a good policy to me. I imagine that someone who is very political might have a lot more trouble - it does seem to me from my few brief forays into controversial topics that some of the political pages are dominated by editors with one POV (and I see this even when the POV agrees with my own POV) - but I spend my time on pages relating to science, technology, and engineering, where there is a physical reality that the page either does or does not reflect. That alone takes away many potential areas of conflict on those pages. I am part of a whole other world of Wikipedians where we spend our time discussing whether thermocouples generate voltage at the tip or along the length, and where the the attributes of the clock input of a 74LS78A integrated circuit is something we work very hard at getting right. For us, the way Wikipedia's admins are running things is working just fine. Guy Macon 00:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Help!

In rescuing a page, I've stumbled upon a user who's adding deletion tags en masse to articles about Philippines football, claiming they're not notable (to him). I reverted some of these but then he started writing they're recreations of earlier articles, which I've been unable to determine. In the only communication I've had with him, he mentioned a paucity of links to these (new!) articles.

The editor does not bother to notify the original author (or any author/editor for that matter). When I realised he flagged the entire league 2011 LBC United Football League and the Philippine national Air Force Rider for deletion, I switched from ordinary reverting to revert vandal… but am concerned I'm over-stepping since I don't know his motive, his reasons, if he found something legitimate I don't know about, or if he has a grudge against Philippines football.

I don't seek an edit war, but can't figure this guy out. If I'm wrong about this, tell me and I'll move on.

Thanks. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: The editor Banana Fingers (talk) deleted (actually reverted) my request on his talk page to be kind to new and non-native speakers, but did eventually respond on User_talk:UnicornTapestry#Proded_articles.

I'm over my head here and assistance/advice is appreciated.

Thank you. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm...not entirely sure what we can do here. If you can give us more specific links to things, we could be of more help. The Football League link is helpful though.

But i'm a bit confused. Is he deleting articles on football players or is he deleting articles on football teams? Silver seren^C 00:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You really should not be reverting other editors' deletion nominations unless you can demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were made in bad faith. The articles won't actually be deleted unless there is a consensus to delete them. SnottyWong ^babble 05:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I didn't realize they were prods. In which case, I'm unsure what else needs to be done as the prods have already been declined, and it doesn't look as if banana fingers is escalating them to AfD's. SnottyWong ^gab 05:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

From looking over some of the articles in question, I don't think they would end up getting deleted at AfD anyways. They are a little slim on sources, but they seem to pass notability well enough. Silver seren^C 06:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for advising. I had begun to doubt if I was on solid ground.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Some of you may be interested to read: User talk:Snottywong#Changes. Thanks. —SW— ^express 22:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Out of date

Hi! Just wanted to alert y'all to the fact that the "Current articles" tab at the top of this page seems to bring you to an outdated list. Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone help me rescue an image?

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_March_4#File:Doing_battle_with_the_Deletionists.jpg There are far too many tags to go through and see which one fits. The writer gave permission for this item to be used anywhere on the internet, I specifically asking about the screenshot/scan, and he saying that was fine. They have confirmed this, no doubt at all about it. What license would need to be added in order to justify this? Dream Focus 04:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Have you considered asking User:Moonriddengirl? I think she's one of the experts. Gotta say, I'm much better with sourcing content than I am about the nuances of image licensing, and I suspect most of the ARS is that way. Jclemens (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  - If you notice, Moonriddengirl has already been discussing it with him at the deletion review. :P Silver seren^C 07:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dream Focus. There isn't a wikipedia compatible license for images that can be used anywhere on the internet. Images have to be released on a free license allowing commercial reproduction anywhere so limiting the use to the internet means that it has not been released on a free license compatible with wikipedia. In other words, it must comply with the NFCC to be used. Since this evidently does not comply with the NFCC then its not an appropriate image for us to use. In any event, the author may have given permission to use to the text but do we know for a fact that they own the copyright on the text? Many papers and magazines actually acquire the rights when they publish material. Further who owns the rights to the layout and the images used on the page? These are presumably owned by the person who took the images and the magazibe whose house style the article has been put into. With respect to your desire to publish the text you also need a release from the owner of the rights to the image and the owner to the rights of the page layout before the whole page becomes permissible. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  - - He owns the rights to the page and its content. He said so already, that confirmed. I asked him about the screenshot/scan he saying its fine. He publishes his articles in a magazine, but the contract with them says he owns the rights to it. He resells his articles in collections at times also. Peter David knows copyright laws. I find it hard to believe that people can't just say its alright to release something online or on the Wikipedia, without having to allow people to print and profit from it as well. If that's the case, I'll just ask him to upload it on his website somewhere, and just link to it where appropriate. Dream Focus 08:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
      - That's what our license requires Dreamfocus. Go read it if you doubt me. I have to say as well that you should be using the OTRS permissions systems to register any release before you can rely on it as unless a release has been registered with the foundation you can't rely on it if it is challenged. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
        OTRS confirmed all three emails from him. The image was fine for over a year, then suddenly, someone has a problem with it. Anyway, I emailed him again asking him to just host it on his official website, and I can just link to it in the two articles that mention it. Dream Focus 08:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
        there was no OTRS tag on the image. What was the ticket number and I'll check that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
        It has a link to the administrator who said they checked it already. Also check the talk page. I'm sure its on the main article page though. And that won't matter anyway, if the other problem is there. I already emailed him, so hopefully he'd just host it on his own webpage, and we can just link to that. Dream Focus 09:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
        Specifically the link confirms that the admin states that the claimed permission was inadequate without an email from the author to OTRS. So the release has not been registered with the foundation, and the claim of free use is a massive red herring. You clearly knew this because you responded to the admin but persisted in claiming an OTRS permission and have been wasting my time. I won't bother to try and help you in future. 09:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
        Google cache of the deleted page shows I linked to User_talk:PeterSymonds#Padguy_.3D_Peter_David. Don't have a photographic memory and didn't think to check the cache to see what it said. Its been awhile. He has confirmed the identity of the person. So you can see what the guy said on his talk page, he saying it was alright there as well. User_talk:Padguy "And to make it easy to distribute, I will allow anyone who wants to to repost it anywhere on the net without having to ask permission. And that's not a threat. That's a promise.Padguy (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)" He posted on my talk page when he had it out. Anyway, all this is moot if his permission doesn't count under the licensing, it having to be public domain several have said. Dream Focus 09:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This diff ought to take care of it provided Padguy is who he says he is. Taemyr (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Its pathetic that it had to come to that! I fully expect Verno or someone like him will still balk.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to expand on what you mean by "someone like [me]"? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think it's appropriate that it comes to something like that. We really do need to take care that the licenses someone gives for content on wikipedia matches the licenses that wikipedia states applies on our content. Ie. it's not enough for us that someone allows use on wikipedia, because we state that what is used here can be used "freely" elsewhere. Taemyr (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

WMF starting to acknowledge "deletion" problem

The WMF is starting to acknowledge that article deletion is driving away users.

Please note: users are not automatically logged in at strategy, so people may want to log in over there before commenting in those threads. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has ever questioned whether deletion drives away users. So do warnings. So do policies like NPOV, NOR, and V. The disagreement is when people say we should let editors reduce the quality of the encyclopedia just to keep them around. WMF is smart when they say that we should beware of a false choice between quality and inclusiveness. We don't have to lower quality standards to keep editors around. ARS helps articles meet standards. What we need is another group that helps new users understand those standards. And maybe an editing interface that makes the whole process just easier overall. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- What we also need is a bunch of users who reorient themselves and think "How should this info be presented?" rather than "Does this article belong in Wikipedia in the state it is now?" Merging and redirecting are perfectly good things to do with sub-standard articles, yet the tug-of-war between deletion and retention goes on unabated. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  - Yeah it's so annoying to see AFDs more focused on winning than on consensus building. The tug of war has a solution... it's usually a merge or a redirect. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Game designers

Can anyone help find sources that can improve the articles for Marcelo Del Debbio, Paul Drye, Ann Dupuis, Pete Fenlon, Geoffrey C. Grabowski, Rob Heinsoo, Gary Holian, ‎Jeff Koke, Christopher Kubasik, Scott Leaton, Chris Wiese, Ken Lightner, Clinton R. Nixon, ‎or ‎Marcus Rowland (author)? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the rescue template

The Lauren O'Connell article was kept, the AfD template was removed, but the rescue template is still there, and therefore it is still in the project page list of articles being rescued. Who is responsible for removing the rescue template when the AfD has been completed?--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No one is "responsible" for its removal, it's just expected that once the AfD is over, it's not needed anymore and someone will remove it. Most often, it is a member of the ARS, but anyone is allowed to do it. Silver seren^C 01:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? I always thought the closing admin did it. When I've tagged anything, I always put the rescue template before the "Afd message ends here" comment, which has always seemed to ensure it gets deleted properly upon closure. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what a lot of us do, yeah. But...closing admins are weird. A lot of them don't know whether it's supposed to be removed or whether they're supposed to do it, so i've seen a lot of them just remove the AfD template from around it and leave the rescue template itself. Silver seren^C 01:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I conclude from this discussion that if we members of the ARS see a concluded AfD, we should go ahead and remove it.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Silver seren^C 02:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Anytime anyone sees a rescue template that's not paired with an XfD (usually AfD) template, then it should be summarily removed with an appropriate edit summary. Unless someone just deleted the AfD header inappropriately, in which case the proper thing to do is put the AfD banner back. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

IF you add the rescue tag above the line "End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point" its more likely to be deleted when the AfD notice is deleted. Closing admins may miss the rescue tag if its added below the end of the AfD stuff--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC) lower down.

Credo

More complimentary accounts for this online library may be doled out soon. Please see Wikipedia talk:Credo accounts#More accounts available. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Colonel Warden, could you please use more informative edit summaries? This edit summary [1] misled me into believing that you were planning to publish a Credo for this project. Thank you, Novickas (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? I doubt anyone else was confused into thinking that. Anyway, I see they are suggesting listing participation in the Article Rescue Squadron is one of the qualifiers. That makes sense. This would be very useful in finding references blocked by paywalls. Dream Focus 04:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nah, lame joke. Novickas (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Darn, looks like signup closed again? Looks useful.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

They didn't start yet. They are just suggesting the requirements for approval and discussing that. Dream Focus 05:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The bar for application is being set pretty high - proposals to include those with 3,000+ edits to article space, GAs, FAs, etc. This won't help the newbies whose articles often come up here. But maybe someone could create a help request page for those who do have it/get it, then we could post a link to it as a resource? Novickas (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions about ARS

ARS hasn't come across my radar in many months, but it occurred to me that I might as well relay some questions here:

The Article Rescue Squadron appears to be the only WikiProject that gets to have a template on articles. This seems inappropriate. Why not tag the talk pages?
Why tag? Why not just patrol WP:AFD instead?
When an article proposed for deletion is tagged with an ARS template, how is that different from WP:CANVASSING, particularly when a crowd of ARS members are drawn to participate in a deletion discussion, outnumbering deletion proponents?

I can't answer these. Enlightenment is appreciated. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Your third question is answered at the top of the page, in the template of questions that we've made since they are perennially asked. Silver seren^C 22:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

And the other two are answered extensively in the archives as well. For example, while the ARS may maintain membership lists, article rescue is a core function, like WP:3O or WP:MEDCAB not limited to any one Wikiproject. If your interest is in learning, reading the archives of these talk pages is a great place to start. Jclemens (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, the third question isn't answered at the top of the page. It describes the ideal intent of ARS, but not necessarily the actual practice. And Jclemens, please refrain from rash assumptions. I did search the archives and failed to find an explanation as to why ARS requires a tag on articles rather than the article talk pages. That's why I asked here. WP:3O and WP:MEDCAB are poor analogies in that regard. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're not able to find the previous discussions. I suggest you look harder and expand the search a bit. Off the top of my head, there've been deletion discussions for these pages, MfD's for the {{Rescue}} template, an RfC or two I suspect, and various discussions on AN/ANI. Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

JClemens is correct. There was a time in 2007 where the template only appeared on talk pages, but it was decided in January 2008 that it should go on the article page to encourage input from anyone viewing the article. see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_24#Template:Rescue and User:Milowent/History_of_the_Article_Rescue_Squadron for more information.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for that fascinating historical record, Milowent! I would not have found that on my own.

So, do you guys track any metrics on this project? Success rates, articles rescued due to improvement, articles rescued due to AfD argumentation, whatever? ~Amatulić (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

All I track is my personal metrics which are on my user page. I don't usually add the rescue tag to articles I rescue, because in my experience it attracts at least as many deletionists as inclusionists, turning any case, no matter how clearcut, into a pitched battle. I'm "rescuing" a couple of articles at the moment, but you'd have to go through my contributions to see which ones they are. When I do tag an article for rescue, it's usually because I don't have time to just source it myself. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ditto on a personal record, which you can see clearly from the long list at the top of my userpage. I only add articles that I have personally improved while they were at AfD. Silver seren^C 06:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

My observation regarding tagging is similar to yours. Your personal rescue activities are exactly what ARS members should be doing, in my view: improving articles to protect them from deletion.

Incidentally, I classify myself as a precisionist, although I have been mistaken for deletionist by others (including Milowent, as I recall). Joining ARS therefore doesn't really fit my style, but improving articles to protect them from deletion, as opposed to tagging to attract AfD participation, is something I can support. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

To get back to the original questions (maybe some things that should be put in the FAQ):

1 - The ARS is not only a WikiProject, but a part of the deletion process. As a part of the process, the rescue tag is placed immediately below the AfD tag.
2 - As you can see above, most Rescue patrollers don't actually place the tag, they just work on the articles they find. The tag is for people who may not necessarily know what they need to do. Many experienced editors don't participate in XfD discussions, and may not know what is needed when they get a talk page message saying that an article they created has been nominated for deletion. The tag is used to ask for help.
3 - The premise of this question is faulty, and has been brought up without evidence in every MfD for the ARS (see the links above). The ARS tag has never been shown to merely attract !votes without impovement to the article on which it is used. WP:CANVASS only applies to seeking votes to affect the outcome of a discussion. The ARS tag results in improvement of articles, and is ineffective at keeping articles that do not meet the standards for inclusion. You will find ARS members who !vote delete on tagged articles. If an editor places it on an article as an attempt to improperly canvass for keep !votes on a article that cannot be brought up to standards, they will likely be disappointed with the results.

I hope those answers provide a better understanding of the ARS and it's integral position in the deletion process. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. Regarding to your point #3, there is no faulty premise. That's why I asked it. As an example, I can point you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valhalla Vineyards and its subsequent deletion review. This was my first-ever awareness that ARS existed. The result of the ARS tag was to attract ARS members to the debate. No substantive improvements to the article occurred to address the concerns that led to its deletion proposal, leaving me with a question in my mind about an apparent ARS agenda of "rescuing" articles by overwhelming AFD disussions. This initial negative impression of ARS improved from my subsequent observations of ARS activities, but those observations didn't answer that question in my mind. So after more than a year, I asked here. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That does happen sometimes, yes. Though, looking at the article, this seems to be one of the cases where the notability is already expressed anyways from the sources. Yes, it could probably be improved, but its notability shouldn't be in question. Silver seren^C 22:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

But that shouldn't happen at all. The fact that it does happen suggests something broken in how ARS works, but I have no idea how to fix it.

Regarding Valhalla, notability is still in question, as addressed in detail by User:Agne27/WP:SIGCOV and Valhalla Vineyards. Because I've seen no substantial improvements to address those concerns, I've contemplated re-nominating that article again now that we have a precedent from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant (2nd nomination) resulting in a delete based on identical arguments. I don't plan to get around to it any time soon, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it happen? The ARS list is just like any other WP:DELSORT list, which can attract editors who tend to hold any wiki-philosophy whatsoever. Like CANVASS expects, it's a neutral notification of all involved editors. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What happened in the case of Valhalla is that much sourcing was identified and debated during the AfD and DrV. After the DrV I and others did improve the article with the information yielded. ARS is not perfect, yet also not broken. Amatulić and I did joust some on that one, but ultimately I found we would probably be in agreement on 95% of all wineries regarding their notability. Compare that to Daryl Wine Bar, I agree that was not notable; that article was fueled by an alleged secondary motive of an editor wanting to reward ex-scientologists, it was a total puff piece for a new restaurant. It was one of a few articles with the same secondary motive problem. Daryl is no useful precedent as to Valhalla, if anything its more like White Owl Winery, which was turned into a redirect to the locality.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Request

Please could the "Articles currently tagged for rescue" section be moved to the top of the project page? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, never mind. I just linked the category page on my user page.—RJH (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

400 free Credo Reference accounts available

Another 400 free Credo Reference accounts have been made available for Wikipedians, kindly donated by the company and arranged by Erik Möller of the Wikimedia Foundation. We've drawn up some eligibility criteria to direct the accounts to content contributors, and after that it's first-come, first-served. The list will open on Wednesday, March 23 at 22:00 UTC, and will remain open for seven days. See Wikipedia:Credo accounts.

Feel free to add your name even if you're lower on the list than the 400th, in case people ahead of you aren't eligible, and good luck! SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That is odd. So whoever wants it has to be around at that time, and rush to sign up before anyone else does. I need to get an alarm clock. Can someone add my name to the list if I sleep late that day? Dream Focus 09:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Its open now, with lots of slot left for the taking.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I was there the moment it opened and saw others pouring in as well. I'm amazed that only 76 positions have been filled for the 400 available. [2] If you plan on rescuing articles, its very useful to be able to read all the news articles from major newspapers instead of just seeing the summary that appears in Google news archive search. This is a tool that can be used to bring the illumination of knowledge to the darkness of ignorance and intolerance, and drive back those who destroy an article worth saving. Dream Focus 04:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

New Pages and New Users

I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.

What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.

I know this isn't necessarily your standard fare, but with this project's main focus being on saving content, individual editors might find it intriguing. If you're interested, read Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/New pages, sign up and get involved; questions can be dropped on the talkpage or directed at me. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ironholds, thanks for the heads up (here's Sue's update he is referring to: [3]). It would be nice if the first 2-5 articles created by a new editor were somehow flagged for a separate "worthiness" review. I don't know the percentages, but badly written articles from newby editors on notable subjects are an area where the Squadron has done lots of good work. I feel bad when I see these editors leave so quickly due to not being prepared to be challenged on their article in what they see as a very adversarial environment, unlike most online communities.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's actually a really good idea; we distinguish between veteran and normal editors for patrolling purposes, so why not distinguish between normal and newbie editors? I'll bring it up. Ironholds (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I strongly support helping the ARS target new articles created by NEW users. I wish I had more time to contribute, but I entirely support this effort. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Robert J. Schwalb

Does anyone have any more sources for game designer Robert J. Schwalb? 108.69.80.49 (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

1946 Nankaido earthquake rupture zone.png

The 1946 Nankaido earthquake rupture zone.png is shown needing rescue, but the file itself has only the rescue template, without any AfD. If already rescued, then someone should remove the rescue template. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a red link. Was it already deleted? Dream Focus 12:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That is the enigma. See Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue where it is listed, after the articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No longer is up for deletion, someone fixing the information. I removed the rescue tag. Dream Focus 14:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack on the Article Rescue Squadron?

Thumperward moved Wikipedia:Delete the junk to Wikipedia:Content which can't be rescued with the edit summary "retitle to make it more specific what this applies to". [4] Opinions please. Deliberate attack on the Article Rescue Squadron? Dream Focus 22:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this move. The essay also specifically points out ways that such articles can be improved, such as starting them from scratch, which is possible to do while the AfD is going on and would count as rescuing. This move is highly inappropriate. Silver seren^C 00:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's been moved back. Let's also remember that the ARS is one specific group of rescuers, but that the concept of "article rescue" doesn't belong to any such group. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but article rescuing is usually attributed to the ARS by the community, regardless. Thus, any attack on article rescuing can be very likely attributed to being an attack on the ARS. Silver seren^C 07:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You're stretching both the definition of "attack" and presuming targeting that isn't indisputable. I would advise that actually engaging in the rescuing of genuinely sourceable articles is a more productive use of time than jumping at possible veiled slights against the ARS. If the ARS does good work, the slights won't matter, and if it does not, then the ARS won't matter. Jclemens (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is against personal attacks. And there is no reasonable doubt this was a deliberate attack against the Rescue Squadron. Dream Focus 08:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

First, I am not so sure this is a personal attack, or at least, as a member of ARS, I do not take it personally. Second, this is an essay, representing the viewpoint of one editor, and it may be a minority viewpoint. The best approach for anyone who disagrees is to write their own essay, espousing a contrary viewpoint. Such an essay should answer the question of whether there are articles so bad, that deletion is the only remedy. Deletionists say that there are, but of course there aren't many good examples which haven't been already deleted. Beyond that, I do say Delete for some articles nominated for rescue. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it can be difficult to interpret an authors intent in a brief message. I actually see it as a more positive rewording.—RJH (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

To me it looks like that editor was saying the term "junk" is subjective. They changed it to a phrase in the hope of it being more clear, to point out that just because it is called "junk" by some doesn't mean it can't be saved. In fact, I would characterize the edit as having been very much in line with the goals of the Article Rescue Squadron. But regardless it has been removed, so why fret? -- Avanu (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

whether its an attack or not, that essay rarely wins the day in a deletion discussion. it reflects the viewpoint of a few editors who are frequent fliers in AfD, and little more. I had much fun when Dream nominated it for deletion, though, Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Delete_the_junk--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Well known individuals stubs

Hi. Not sure where to turn to with this but is anyone interested in rescuing Category:Well known individuals stubs? It's clearly a newbie attempt to create an article but it can't be moved to mainspace because it's in the category space. It can't be copy/pasted either because that would be a copyright problem. But the W.D. Wood does seem to meet the notability requirements, if only because he was a state legislator. Pichpich (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I went to the page you provided, and used the history to send a welcome to the user who created the page. That is a start, and I could follow up with a talk page posting about this page, but tell me about the copyright problem as you perceive it. I am keen to help new users get into creating articles. I remember how tricky I found it as a newbie myself. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I forgot to watch this page so the response is late but the copyright issue is linked to a technical problems. Categories can't be moved (at least not by non-admins) so the only way to get that content in mainspace is to cut-and-paste it and to delete the category page. But this would constitute a copyright violation since the attribution to the original contributor would get lost. Obviously this is not that big a deal since the talk page could explain the situation and link to the right account. Pichpich (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Migration to wikia

Floating this idea.

How about having external links to wikia for some episodes and characters instead of articles. So instead of a redirect to the episodes page, you would have a redirect to wikia.

If the editors who respect other contributors edits support this, we can see what happens next.

Okip 16:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggested that years ago on Jimbo's talk page[5] and elsewhere. Odd no one ever did that. It would've made Jimbo more money for his Wikia. Of course some might start linking to wikis other than wikia then. Dream Focus 16:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea, that has been floated before, by various editors some of whom had a clue as to how to go about it. I will see if I can find some of the previous discussions. pablo 16:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I have found previous discussions, by searching the village pump policy page. there are some real ideological arguments about this idea from a wide variety of people, which we would have to be prepared to address.

Also prepare for some of the most respected editors who support ARS to strongly oppose the idea.

I am a pretty controversial figure, and people will oppose some of my suggestions just because I have suggested it, so it would be best if someone else floated it if there is enough support here and we decide to move forward with it. I can disappear right now if you think that my presence here hurts the idea.

I am heartened that you two support it, two editors who have very different views of what wikipedia is. Okip 17:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Terrible idea. Many wikias have little or no editorial standards and oversight. Why would you want to make automatic redirects from a place which strives so hard to have strong standards to another place which has none. You'd have to have a big transition warning page on every redirect which says "The page you're being redirected to might be full of complete bullshit." The real, logical reason for not implementing this, however, is that Wikipedia has decided that such content (i.e. minor characters from non-notable episodes of non-notable TV shows) is not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Including a redirect to a wikia article on such content is essentially an end-run around that decision to not include that content on wikipedia. In other words, someone creates an article on "Herman the toad", a frog which made a 14-second appearance on the second of three episodes of a failed Kenyan cartoon. It predictably gets nominated for deletion, and someone copies and pastes it to the Kenyan Cartoon Wikia before it gets deleted here. Then, after it gets deleted here, someone creates a redirect to the same article on wikia, thus short-circuiting the deletion process entirely. This would never fly. And I have the diffs to make sure everyone knows whose idea this originally was. —SW— ^chat 20:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but rather than having inline links to episodes and characters from a series, I was thinking more of having a link to the relevant Wikia in the == External links == section. So that one can find out about (say) the notable series Scrubs on Wikipedia, much as now, whereas if you want to know details about minor characters, or a plot synopsis of every episode, a handy link will take you to Wikia, where you can gambol and skip among the butterflies untroubled by any of those nasty inconvenient things like verifiability, sourcing, notability etc. pablo 21:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the fans of the subject of the wikia will usually spot false information and fix it straight away. They verify everything from the primary source. And notability doesn't matter, since no shortage of space. My Gantz wikia has articles for every single character no matter how insignificant. If someone wants to make it, no reason not to let them. Dream Focus 22:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Made a lot of post about the wikia on my user page. Last year they announced that they had over 33 million people a month visiting wikia. The external links project page formerly said to move certain types of articles to an off wiki such as wikia, but they changed it. Dream Focus 22:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I see no problem with this. Wikipedia was started as a place where fiction, "in popular culture", and other user-beloved content now derided as cruft drew people in. If there's a license-compatible way to move such material elsewhere and link to it, it's a better option than deletion. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You go to Special:Export and then on the wikia administrators have the import page to bring it on in. You then tag the top of the page saying it was originally from Wikipedia, there bots doing that automatically for mass imports. I've done this with tens of thousands of articles already on various wikis. When seeing something at AFD, many times I'd take the time to export their full history, instead of just the most recent even. Dream Focus 06:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Rescue tag wording discussion

There is currently a discussion going on here about changing the wording to the rescue tag. Any interested parties please join the discussion there. Silver seren^C 03:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The previous discussion has generated some ideas for revising the template and instructions, including some radical changes to usage. We're spitballing suggested template examples. I'd encourage the opinions of all ARS members to help allay my concerns that failing to address frequent usage abuse makes the project appear like a wink and a nod votefarm. I'd especially like engagement on Proposal #5, which speaks plainly to what I see as the central issue bothering me, User:Avanu, User:Snottywong and others. Lots of spit about, so wear your apron. BusterD (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

There are currently about 710 articles which are at AFD. Of these, just 4 are flagged for rescue. The suggestion that the rescue template is being overused to the extent that we need to discuss the matter seems to be blatantly false. Colonel Warden (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No one said it was being overused. The wording above is "frequent usage abuse", maybe not the clearest way to put it, but he meant frequent 'usage abuse'. In other words, when it is used, it is often misused. Sorry for the misunderstanding. -- Avanu (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

My one concern is over the use of the word 'whether', when the intent is clearly the word 'that'. I think that may necessitate a slight rewording. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll just put this here

Yay, it's personal attack time. Apparently, we're all unintelligent and, subsequently, stupid. (And, remember, deletionists don't exist, they're all in your mind) Silver seren^C 02:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Rather than act that surprised, why not make a greater effort to bridge that gap. Too many labels being tossed about - see claptrap - Avanu (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that both the person I linked to and the one you did are both deletionists. But they try to act like deletionists don't exist while also attacking inclusionists at the same time. We're not the ones that go around bad-mouthing the other group whenever we get the chance. Silver seren^C 03:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

My my, what you end up finding if you pull the archives of this 'pedia. I couldn't just let a comment like 'those other guys are the ones who are always wrong' stand by without looking things up. Several conversations are interesting, but I especially like this one (from here):

Keep Out of context! Anyone who comments here please read through it. Have I ever called anyone "insane", "idiotic", "evil", "crazy", "stupid", "unreasonable vicious hordes of deletionists" by name? If I disagree with a policy or guideline I can refer to it by these names, because many of them are rather stupid. If you have a specific entry to refer to, then link to it or quote it here. Dream Focus 02:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC) (note: I have never once called anyone insane, idiotic, crazy, or stupid either. See my bit below.) [1] Dream Focus 20:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess him calling me that today is just a first. I'm not trying to dredge up the past, so I'll stop with that quote, I'm simply saying it is probably good to keep things in perspective. (By the way, how in the world does it make sense to AfD a user's page?) I like what this other editor said (from here):

Just an observation but any notability discussion that involves liberal usage and vilifying of the terms "deletionist" or "inclusionist" (regardless of your viewpoint) usually ends up the same way most online discussion do as soon as someone plays the nazi or race card. Overgeneralizing and trying to paint the broad spectrum of diverse perspectives and reasonings into a neat little target is never productive and only serves to further polarize people into "them deletionists" or "those inclusionists" etc. AgneCheese/Wine 05:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes people can be reasonable, we just both need to drop the sticks and try it more often. -- Avanu (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Where did I call you that at all? Are you referring to the other guy? Why drag in an out of context quote of something I said in response to a wrong accusation someone made against me? I did not use such language to refer to anyone's proposal or to an individual. Dream Focus 11:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This is kind of a humorous page as well, Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists. -- Avanu (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just me, but I wouldn't get too emotional over the baiting behavior of certain pro-deletionist editors. If they are attacking with emotion-based arguments, it usually means the project's objectives have some rational merit that conflicts with their own desires, and they are seeking to hinder further recruitment. These attacks won't make the project go away and it won't significantly hinder concerted efforts to rescue worthwhile articles. So why get upset? Regards, RJH (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. The best way for ARS to undermine itself is to be what the "deletionists" say they are: a homebase for inclusionists to canvass, and organize a faction to battle deletionists. The best way to make the "deletionists" look bad is to keep improving articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, duh. Articles that fit Wikipedia's criteria are at less risk of deletion, improve away - it's a better use of your time than monitoring AfD discussions. Unfortunately, some insertyourowntermhere-ists are here only for the conflict, so you will always get some, especially when ARS members repeatedly post stuff like this and of course this. pablo 11:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I rather like the second one. It should be a real book. Silver seren^C 19:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it has many aspects which I imagine would appeal. Check out the rest of the page, there are other such "calls to arms" from a guy who looooooves the conflict and sniping at his perceived 'enemies'. pablo 22:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Where do I snipe at perceived enemies at? I certainly do not love the conflict, and would rather be without it. Certain people seem to keep twisting things around to try to slander me. And the the second link you mention is a joke because people kept saying I was rallying against the evil deletionists, so I just went with that, it rather funny. And we can't monitor all AFDs, there just too many each day. Having people find something that might be worth saving, and tagging it for Rescue, helps find those worth working on. Dream Focus 23:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Slander is a pretty strong word, Dream. I liked the wording better before you edited it. I don't see where people are twisting things really. Its just a matter of perception, and I think its just honest disagreement, not deception or slander. It might be simpler to assume someone is trying to work to a positive conclusion instead of assuming they are out to take down the Dream. -- Avanu (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe what you are saying or is this just some sort of act? Judging by the long history I have of this editor taking a swing at me every chance he gets, I'd say he is doing this deliberately. Dream Focus 16:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, considering that I am losing track of which editor is the latest one to get your dander up, I am being serious, and it might help to just adopt the water off a duck's back approach. -- Avanu (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

A good point, and well made; kudos. pablo 19:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Not surprising the editor who is the subject of this post was indefinitely banned from commons.wikimedia.org[6] for this edit[7] What is surprising is this editor is not an administrator on wikipedia yet. It blows my mind how editors on other sites who would have been banned for the same behavior are now administrators and in some cases have Jimbo's blessing on wikipedia. This says a lot about Jimbo and the company culture he has nurtured. If we had a more competent and tolerant leader than Jimbo, wikipedia would not have this common reputation it has today:

"Whilst Wikipedia and Wikimedia are, in themselves, exciting projects, their structure, design and combative social norms do not currently make them the friendly or the protected space that museums tend to be comfortable operating in."[8]

Angry Mastodons and waterproof ducks

Avanu, it is really hard to make peace happen when editors have offwiki forums dedicated to forcefully pushing their ideology on the entire project.

I don't know you Avanu, so this may not be the case with you, but when a person supports a person's viewpoint, they use terms like "it might help to just adopt the water off a duck's back approach". But when a person does not support that person's viewpoint, they Dive. I see some names here in this thread who voted to dismantle ARS in the past, and have ruthlessly helped push off prominent ARS editors off wikipedia, who are preaching tolerance now. Silver Seren and Dream, ignore these editors who are only consistent in their inconsistent judgment of editors.

If this editor says something like this again, take him to ANI or too wikietiquette, bringing up the commons ban and other edits.

Have you KINDLY talked to this editor first?

Have you posted on this editors page, asking him to kindly delete or modify this post?

It is a win-win if you diplomatically approach the editor first in the future:

They may apologize, and remove the post, and soften their view of ARS members, or try to be more diplomatic next time, then everyone is happy.
Or they may lash out at you then you have more edit diffs to escalate their behavior. In addition future editors who have problems with this hypothetical editor have documented history of their behavior for future RFCs and Arbcoms. When helping desyop admins and collecting information, the first thing I do, that everyone does is go to the editors talk page history first.

Bottom line: In the future try to diplomatically talk to these editors first before posting here and other forums. Okip 15:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Okip, I really didn't see a need for this thread to exist in the first place. Why does it matter if some person calls this the "Article Canvassing Squadron"? Is it really a big deal? Especially since that Roux person seems to generally have a negative attitude, you should consider it a compliment that it was as lighthearted as it was. -- Avanu (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

3. Or they might just ignore you completely, particularly if they have any inkling of knowledge about your history and reputation. (Personally, this would be my choice.) —SW— ^confess 16:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

3.1 They may also question the wisdom of taking advice from a guy who does not know the meaning of the word "retired". pablo 16:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I had my car retired just last fall. All four tires; it cost me a pretty penny. ;-) RJH (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Specific article template removal

There has been a vote called at Talk:The_Beatles#Options to remove the above content from the page. The person who called the vote is also an editor of Michael Jackson and the vote will probably set policy there as well. This is a half step on the road to deleting them all.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And the reason for posting this at the ARS is...? Fram (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't see much cause for alarm. The Beatles pretty much pass every test for encyclopedic content, notability, verifiability, sourcing, etc. -- Avanu (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no attempt to delete the Beatles, there is a discussion at an article talk page to remove a few templates from that article. Posting this here seems rather inappropriate, as it has nothing to do with the ARS. Fram (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The point is that I believe ARS also rescues templates as a form of encyclopedic content. Have a look at the templates as they are currently employed on the page and see if the bolding complements the encyclopedic content of the prose in a more visible manner. My fear is that once you start deleting templates one by one from articles that seems to be the first step towards deleting the templates themselves.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion seems very Beatles-centric about organization than anything else, not really something ARS can help out with. The Beatles are far more notable than I wish they were!!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the vote. It is about only one issue. It is about the removal of the templates shown above. That is not general. It is specific. My request is a request within the mission of ARS, which is to prevent the deletion of encyclopedic content that may serve the reader as is or in a slightly reformatted manner. ARS' mission applies to all XFD. It is quite common and in fact general practice for templates to be used to present encyclopedic content regarding related material in the manner that it is in this case. In addition, when I look at the various templates, I learn a bit about the span of the Beatles success. The editor here is also an editor at Michael Jackson and has reverted his own removal of the templates there as this discussion and now vote play out. If you start by removing templates from two of its most notable uses, you are on your way to deleting the whole system.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Help with password-protected and foreign language sources

Relatively new to article rescue, and seeing the repeated pattern that sources exist, but are either password-protected or foreign language. What is considered reasonable turnaround time for finding these sources? Could someone post a link on where to ask for help getting foreign language cites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilliumz (talk • contribs)

I use Google Translator http://translate.google.com/ but I know there is some place on the Wikipedia which you can ask people who speak a language to look at something. I don't remember where I saw that at before though. Sometimes Google translator doesn't translate an entire article when you enter in its web address, so you have to copy the text from that article into the box, and translate it that way. As for articles hidden behind paywalls, its fairly hopeless. You have just hope the summary gives you the information you need. Dream Focus 08:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't use google translate for anything other than if you think you know what a source is saying. It just isn't good enough. Also don't base articles on articles you can't read. So if sources are available but behind a paywall or in a foreign language you are dependent on editors who do have acess or know the language. The wikiproject for the relevant country can be a place to start if you are looking for an editor who speaks a language. Editor reading knowledge is also indexed via user categories. Taemyr (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If an article is in AfD, "reasonable turnaround time" effectively means before the AfD is closed, and they only run for 7 days. However, if you can identify the existence of major coverage of a subject, you can bring it to the attention of the AfD discussion to show the subject to be notable, which can be a big help. If you are searching for foreign language sources, consider directly searching the archives of the top newspapers for the relevant country, it can work better than Google sometimes. (Yes, you will learn the word for "search" in many languages if you do this!)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Milowent is correct about the timescale. More importantly, Taemyr is bang-on about Google Translate - it has its uses for translating the occasional word or short phrase from another language, but really you cannot evaluate sources that you cannot read. pablo 14:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Like Pablo says, if you can't read it, you can't use it. Here is a use I just made of translate, here. As you can see, the French translation of the article on the French Wikipedia is good, and very useful in understanding the Leonardi Framework article on the English Wikipedia. I've had good success with (to my surprise) two Russian translations. Also, Icelandic, Italian, Finnish, and Ukranian. The Chinese one I tried wasn't really usable. So I'd say don't hesitate to use the tools that you have, it is a tool, you can use it and you can abuse it. And I'd also consider updating any foreign language references in articles to using Google translate. Unscintillating (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

New Wikiproject Idea

I decided to advertise a bit here, since my Wikiproject idea would also involve "rescuing" of articles, it would just be rescuing userspace drafts of articles that would end up getting deleted because they belong to a retired user. You can read more about my Abandoned Drafts Wikiproject idea here. Please leave a note there letting me know if any of you guys and girls would like to join. Silver seren^C 10:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Why start a new project for this? If someone is trying to delete such a draft then a rescue tag could be used in the usual way. Warden (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that the draft would just be sitting around. Drafts need to have a place to go, that's the purpose of the Wikiproject, the project is not going to be involved in Deletion discussions, it's going to be involved in getting users to adopt the drafts. Silver seren^C 19:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Wishing you all the best in the endeavor. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)