Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48→Archive 50

Pastor Theo

Editor is gone, he severely broke the rules. If you want to comment more, please comment more at Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Removal_of_administrative_access

A member of the squadron, User talk:Pastor Theo, was just stripped of his adminship and indefinitely blocked. I don't understand the full details. He was a real good friend of mine.

If this is anyway inappropriate to post, please remove it. I thought everyone should know. Ikip (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the account was a recreation of a banned member (no public disclosure as to what user though). It was quite a shock to me & I am sorry to see him go. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
A previously banned editor on a different account that does a good job as an admin. The rules are to strict. Joe Chill (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be more to this story, as Theo was apparently also actively sock puppeting while an admin. Hopefully, we'll have full details in the next couple days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Baffled by this one. I can think of a number of accounts of formerly banned users who are/were still permitted to edit under the new account even with highly suspect edits. By contrast, Pastor Theo seems to have only been a good hand and constructive account. If some of these others are/were allowed to start over, well... Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Not much info so far, what there is is here and here. pablohablo. 08:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
It appears like more info is coming out at the links Pablomismo provided. Once again I am encouraging that check user be allowed without any evidence on any two registered accounts by anyone. Once again I will be ignored or criticized. Ikip (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The real story is that the former account tried to get someone fired from their real world job for opposing his RfA. That is beyond excusable in any circumstances, and the immediate indef on Theo is completely appropriate. (He has only caught because he was stupid enough to also sock puppet, though.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Is it confirmed that he was the alleged user? If so, then yes, anyone who takes Wikipedia disputes to the real world is crossing an essentially unforgivable line, but so far I have only seen suspicions. Is that indeed what happened? I am resisting repeating the alleged user's name here so as to better protect the identity of the individual harassed in real life. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Not officially, but the evidence is pretty clear cut. Its not appropriate to repeat the details here, but you can email if you want to know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
If you would like to email me, my generic Wikipedia only email is wikipedianobody@yahoo.com. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
A Nobody: Some solid evidence is available on-wiki, on a talk page where you posted earlier today. --Orlady (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay and it does seem somewhat persuasive.  :( Shucks! There goes one of my supporters at User:A_Nobody/RfA#Those_who_would_be_willing_to_support_me_in_an_RfA... Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the official announcement. As someone who was around for and involved with Ecoleetage the first time around, I must say this is not a net loss for the project. In addition to the horrible things he did to some very good editors as Ecoleetage, as Pastor Theo he has now resorted to socking in clear and flagrant violation of WP:SOCK in AfD and RfA discussions. AniMatedraw 01:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. It's surprising that it was Eco. Joe Chill (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it relates to this at all. Seems ironic, none-the-less. Metty 18:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

He's an habitual liar, if he's not already socking, he will be shortly. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Lord Loss

A notable book in a notable series by a notable author is in AFD here. Joe Chill (talk)

I think you make a good case for this article's inclusion and it is unfortunate that what seems like a good faith request above has been received with an assumption of bad faith in the actual discussion. Some of the article's edit history summaries are not much better in terms of collegiality (such as the dismissive "pitiful 'award'"), but please do not let these things discourage you. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My article is up for deletion

A few seconds after I created an article, it was nominated for deletion. The nominator's reason for deletion was that the book is non-notable and that's it. The book won many major awards. Here is the AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Stray Dog (book). Joe Chill (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

And the editor didn't even add it to the AFD log so I'll have to do it or someone else. Joe Chill (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
And the editor is on an AFD spree with new articles. Joe Chill (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
And now the nominator has withdrew it. Someone needs to talk to him about this (not my specialty). Joe Chill (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I've written an essay on how to handle deletion discussions of good and featured articles. Your input and edits are welcome. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion effort redux

The article The Shells, about a trio that was nominated for an award of MTV VMA Best Breakout Band in NYC", made it into the top 3 in a music competition with 190 other bands, and which was written up in Seventeen Magazine and the Queens Chronicle was up for deletion, survived, and the nominating deleter immeditately sought to appeal the "keep". Is that an appropriate article for tagging? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

editors can appeal deletion discussions, they can also continue to nominate an article for deletion. I think the record is 18 or 19 times. Ikip (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Astonishing. Is this article an appropriate one for me to flag for rescue at this point?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Not really - the ARS tag is to improve articles during XfD discussions. Since DRV is a procedural appeal, not a repeat of the AfD, article improvements are irrelevant to discussion there. So ARS tagging is not helpful in this case Fritzpoll (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I was about to ask the same question about Tubefilter. :-) Thanks for the pre-emptive clarification. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Find your interest --deletion sorting pages

Below are listed all of the deletion sorting pages. Editors regularly add a lot of AFDs to these pages. Find your interest then watch the page. You can then decide whether articles within your interest are worth saving, and adding the rescue tag too.

You can make a custom list of all of these deletion debates by adding: {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators}}

To one of your own user pages.

Academics and educators
Actors and filmmakers
Advertising
Africa
Albums and songs
American football
Anime and manga
Antarctica
Architecture
Arts
Asia
Atheism
Athletes
Authors
Bands and musicians
Baseball
Basketball
British Columbia
Buddhism
Business
Businesspeople
Caribbean
Central Asia
Christianity
Comics and animation
Computing
Conspiracy theories
Cricket
Crime
Disambiguations
Education
Environment
Ethnic groups
Europe
Events
Fashion
Fictional elements
Film
Food and drink
Football
Game
Golf
Guantanamo Bay detainment camp
Hinduism
History
Photography
Ice hockey
Internet
Islam
Judaism
Language
Law
Lists
Lists of people
Literature
Living people
Malls
Martial arts
Medicine
Middle East
Middle-earth
Military
Museums and libraries
Music
News
Oceania
Ontario
Organisms
Organizations
Paranormal
People
Biography
Philosophy
Piracy
Poetry
Politicians
Politics
Popular culture
Quebec
Radio
Religion
Schools
Science
Science fiction
Sexuality and gender
Sikhism
Social science
Software
South America
Spirituality
Sports
Technology
Television
Terrorism
Transportation
Visual arts
Webcomics
Websites
Wine
Wrestling

Maybe each of us can commit to watching 5 pages which interest us. (there are a total of a hundred pages)

Ikip (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Article rescue squadron

As I mentioned above #separate deletion page, I think we should have our own type of deletion sorting page, or add a subpage to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. This was we can see all the debates all at once.

I think we should not have a list of current articles on this talk page. Ikip (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Closing rationales

I've started a thread on whether closing rationales should stay optional here. Please contribute! Fences&Windows 01:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of band article for supposed lack of notability

Hi -- this is a follow-up to Deletion Effort Redux (five comments prior on this page). 15 days after the last AfD closed, the same article has been renominated for AfD at [1]. It concerns the proposed deletion of the article on the band The Shells, for supposed lack of notability. Is it now ripe for tagging for rescue (it wasn't when I asked this question last)? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there -yes its now fine to tag the article. The article itself was fine to be tagged before, its just we dont normally advice the tag to be used during the DRV process. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Hello friends. I hate to ask this. I swear I've not been drinking. At least not to excess. And yet when I tried to tag the article The Shells for rescue just now, I could not seem to do it properly. The "deletion discussion" did not link to the actual (hotly contested) ongoing deletion discussion. Might one of you be able to tag the article properly for me? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. Correct format to different AfD page is, {{rescue|page=The Shells (folk band) (2nd nomination)}}. Taemyr (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Mediation. Comparison of wiki farms

Comparison of wiki farms. I don't see a {{Rescue}} tag concerning deletion of nearly all of an article. So I am asking about this here.

I am taking this article to mediation in a day or two. As suggested by the Village Pump discussion:

Some people from the Article Rescue Squadron project have participated before in editing and in discussions concerning this article.

Anyone who is interested in signing up to the mediation please say so here:


Recognition of efforts

Standard colors

Aesthetics: Setting up standard colors for the ARS. I notice that WP:ARSW has different colors than Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/FAQ and Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Header

Aesthetics
Article help
Q: So you'll save my article from deletion?
A: Not exactly. First off, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article. Secondly, if an article meets Wikipedia's policies on notability and reliable sourcing it likely will not be deleted. There are also alternatives to deletion which may be appropriate. The project members will do what they can as time allows. We suggest that you reference the Article Rescue Squadron guide to saving articles (Currently in development).

Mysterious Universe

Note:

Hey - since you folks are the pros at this. Could you read over this. I'd love to see these salvaged if possible, but I expect they'll get an AfD before long. Drop me a note on my talk if I can help. — Ched :  ?  05:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I made a couple quick formt fixes with regards to the references. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Exporting articles to other wikis

I am wondering if anyone has tried to export articles to other wikis on a large basis, using Special:Export Ikip (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I just copied the text from 5 different articles in AFDs to other wikias and wikipopuli. [I don't have access to Special:Import on these wikis, so the history was unfortunately not imported]. I keep seeing again and again editors who delete other editors contributions saying this material should be on other wikis, so now it is. Despite this, I expect the typical group of editors to characteristically condemn what I have done. Ikip (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you don't export the history you are violating attribution (assuming the article is eventually deleted here) and therefore copyright laws. You don't have to have access to Special:Import though - pasting the old article's history to the new article's talk page works. Pasting a list of "non-trivial" contributors is also sufficient, although that is actually more work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I was fully expecting this concern, but I was not expecting this solution--which I am very surprised about. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Waitaminute... Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, now claims that it is copyright infringement to use its articles... even those it has deleted?... Why am I not surprised? Dekkappai (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Um, that has been the case since the beginning of Wikipedia. Anyone is free to use content from Wikipedia, but they must give credit to the people who created the content. Failing to provide credit is a copyright violation - although the violation is against the individual editors who contributed, not Wikipedia. When you contribute content you are not giving up your copyright claim. The same is true or nearly every free/open source project out there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Even after "consensus" throws it out? Dekkappai (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, being deleted is irrelevant. Consensus can't override our licensing terms and the warning on the bottom of every edit screen which says: "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL."
When you place text at some website without giving credit to where it came from you are effectively saying you wrote it, which isn't true. The people who actually did write it are required to get credit for their work under the licensing term of both the GFDL & the CC-BY-SA. (This is a good thing, BTW.) The only exception would be if you were the only "significant" contributor to a given article. In that case, you could place the text else where whether or not it was deleted, as legally you own the text and can do with it as you like (other than revoke the GFDL/CC-BY-SA licenses which you attached to it by contributing here). --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks Thaddeus. I'm not trying to be a smart-ass here, I am just very ignorant of anything legal. So deleted (or current) material is "copyrighted" by the writer, not WP, but we give WP credit if we use the material off-WP, in lieu of the individual contributors? (I've seen my own work turn up on DVD booklets/biographies, and wondered about this sometimes...) Dekkappai (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Legally anything you write is copyrighted (in the US anyway - other countries vary) unless you explicitly state otherwise. The licensing agreements allow other to reuse your text for their own purposes as long as they give you credit, but the copyright remains.
To be a legal copy of Wikipedia's content, a third party must either credit the authors or link back to the correct Wikipedia page where anyone can easily check the history. Technically, saying "from Wikipedia" is insufficient. A fair portion of copies of Wikipedia are, in fact, not legal. However, like I said Wikipedia (and Wikimedia) have no copyright claims. Thus one of the authors must be the one to take action. Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks has instructions on how to do so, and also keeps track of legitimate & non-legitimate copies.
As an aside, probably 80-90% of regular users don't understand the licensing terms - and among casual users it it probably 99%. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again ThaddeusB, you have been invaluable as always. Ikip (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Thaddeus. I'm an artsy-fartsy/creative type who will never understand law or money. I gather from what you say, however, that when I've read some of my work in these DVD biographies, that, contrary to my assumption, *I* am the one who has been violated, not Wikipedia :-( Dekkappai (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
One thing I forgot to mention: the exporting can't change the text's license. CC-BY-SA only is compatible with our duel license, but GFDL only is not. Thus, text can only be exported to a GFDL wiki if it was contributed before the change over a couple months ago. (The majority of wikis are CC-BY-SA.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay that is a mouthful.
The last sentence is confusing.
Is this correct? :
Wikipedia text can only be exported to a GFDL wiki if the Wikipedia text was added to Wikipedia before the licensing change a couple of months ago.
So if anyone has edited an article in the last two months, say since August 26, 2009, then the text cannot be copied to a GFDL wiki?
Lets work on the "what", then I would like to ask the "why" Ikip (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Unless that wiki uses CC-BY-SA licensing, as I understand it. To put things less abstractly, the only other Wiki I contribute to so far, has this licensing: "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License". So, I guess, I'm free to use articles back & forth, so long as I attribute and link to the article at the other Wiki? (I did this in reverse at the Chesty Morgan article-- check the bottom.) But I'm still not sure how we can save deleted articles... There is no way to link to them, and us lowly non-admin peon article-writers have no access to the edit history. So what is the proper way to save a deleted article to another Wiki? Dekkappai (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
First the easier question - "what?" The following types of text can currently be imported into Wikipedia: Public domain, generic CC-BY (creative commons), CC-BY-SA 3.0 (Creative Commons ShareAlike), GFDL-CC-BY-SA duel license, and some CC-BY-SA-2.x if used as a "derivative work" (i.e. not 100% copied word for word). Public domain doesn't technically required attribution, but good practice is to attribute where the text came from else it is (legal) plagiarism. The others, naturally, require attribution which can be established either by listing the authors or linking to a location where they are created.
Wikipedia text can be exported under the following licenses (e.g. imported to a wiki with said license): CC-BY-SA-3.0, GFDL-CC-BY-SA-3.0 dual, and GFDL/GFDL 1.2 but only if the text was contributed before June 15, 2009. If the text has been modified since then the version as of that date can still be exported, but not the current version. Trivial edits (typo fixes, formatting, vandalism/reverts, most anything a bot might do) after that date are fine because such edits aren't copyrightable. Apparently GFDL requires "physical attribution" which means an actual list of contributors where as CC-BY-SA only requires a link back to the contributor list. If I had to guess, it is that difference as to why we changed.
The CC non-commercial licenses such as CC-BY-NC-SA mentioned above are incompatible for import or export, because the license we use does allow commercial use and that one doesn't. Here's a table a found on meta with this info. (All the intricacies didn't occur to me until I re-found that table.)
Now the "why?" question. When you import text to a given wiki you are licensing it under whatever their licensing agreement is. The thing is, you don't have the right to re-license the text unless you wrote it yourself (in which case none of this applies). Thus the licenses must be compatible with each other. On the surface, CC-BY-SA and GFDL accomplish the same purpose, but legally they are incompatible. It is my understanding that Wikipedia obtained some sort of special permission to re-license our GFDL content (I am hazy on the details, so that may not be technically correct.)
Fortunately a large % of wikis do use CC-BY-SA 3.0, which as noted above is best for both importing & exporting purposes. For example, that is the default license for wikia.com wikis. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
See also the instructions copied from my talk page in the following section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Within wikipedia?

From User:ThaddeusB:

RE: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Exporting_articles_to_other_wikis

Two very distinct questions please:

  1. So as long as I copy and paste the article history to talk, then this will satisfy this largely ignored rule?
  2. Does this apply to wikipedia too? i.e. if I were to merge a section of an article, as long as I copy and paste the history to the talk page (say in a collapsible section on the talk page) then this would satisfy this rule?

Thanks. Ikip (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes & Yes. Both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA require that all "non-trivial" contributors be created in some form. Normally this is done by linking back to the Wikipedia article which has the history for attribution. However, the rule can be satisfied by listing the names as well. Thus, a copy & paste of the history will suffice (plus a sentence saying it came from Wikipedia originally to be safe).
See also m:Help:Transwiki which has instructions (basically the same as what I just said) for copying to sites where you don't have Special:Import access; and Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content which has more detailed info. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


Cheat sheet: Copying Wikipedia material to other wikis

Welcome to edit, modify and clarify these tables.

Limitations
CC-BY-SA licensing Freely transfer wikipedia material, with edit history to another CC-BY-SA wiki.
GFDL Edits on the wikipedia article AFTER August 26, 2009 cannot be transfered to a GFDL wiki.*
*Can editors enforce a persons edit behavior outside of wikipedia? Historically wikipedia has not.
Copying Wikipedia material to other wikis.

See: m:Help:Transwiki for more detailed instructions.

Process Problems On wikipedia On the recieving wiki
Copy and paste Must copy the page and page history before the page is deleted, or request an admin to email it to you. Copy the most recent wikipedia page version Copy the most recent wikipedia page version into the new wiki and save.

Copy the page history into the wiki talk page of the new article you just created.

Import/export By default most wikis do not allow access to Special:Import except to admins.

(note that the article rescue wiki http://annex.wikia.com allows all registered users to import.)

Wikipedia: Special:Export Type the name of article, unclick "Include only the current revision, not the full history" The recieving wiki: Special:Import. Import the page.

Ikip (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, I am an admin on about five wikis and can help with importing to them for anyone who requests it of me at say User_talk:A_Nobody/Deletion_discussions#Transwiki_requests. If you have one that is relevant to a wiki on which I am admin, just drop me a note and when I have time, I'll gladly help. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


Apparently ...

Not everyone appreciates the good work done by this project. See last sentence here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. If someone's not upset we're probably not doing a good job. -- Banjeboi 14:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
{{fact}} on the "good work" being done by this project. Net-net it's turning into the vote canvassing and "deletionist" stalk&harassment squad again, and I suspect you know that, Benjiboi. Hipocrite (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least its giving Hipo a page to read and on which to comment, so some good is coming out of it.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hipocrite, please stop hurling accusations here and like this. Calling editors Dicks, accusing a whole group of stalking and harrassment with no supporting evidence. Please stop.
I think it was a really bad idea for Epeefleche to mention Hipo's comment here. Obviously Hipo has some strong disagreements with ARS. Why invite Hipo here to argue Epeefleche? You knew he would get wind of this section from someone, why post this? think twice before stirring the pot again please.
I ignored this section and I was hoping everyone else would too.
Unless no one objects, I will archive or collapse this section now. I don't think anything good is going to come from this discussion. Ikip (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/userfication

There is a discussion about adding a WP:userfication/WP:Incubation button to WP:twinkle, a program that editors use to help them with common Wikipedia maintenance tasks, including speedy deletion (Twinkle is available at Special:Preferences, gadgets tab).

These buttons would give editors doing Wikipedia:New pages patrol another option. Instead of speedy deleting an article, they could move the article to another page, giving the article a second chance to determine if the article is encyclopedic. Ikip (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully a very easy question to answer

Hello-- Question about the overall scope of the rescue squadron(!) in that, do you encourage shuffling Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion-tagged article for saving as well? Or it the AfD area you're prefer things be worked on? I also pick a lot of AfDs at random to research but if I'm going to sign up on the list I'd want to know if my un-A7 work counts as project time (not a big deal though). Thanks! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No-one's keeping score, so far as I know, but it's all good in my eyes. Myself, I'm doing proposed deletion patrol lately. We should perhaps compare notes here as speedies and prods often go straight to AFD when they are challenged and so it all comes together then. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I think this question about the scope of ARS is asked so much that it should probably be in the FAQ.
Datheisen, see:
  1. Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#PRODs_and_ThaddeusB
  2. #Image Recovery Squad
  3. Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Prod_rescue
above. Ikip (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
In a more perfect Wikipedia none of this work would be needed at all as only a few items would be mistakenly sent for deletion without fully researching them. However even I have nommed a few things that I later saw should indeed be saved but we rather poorly written so the initial nom seemed like a good idea at the time. Once ARS gets a bit more sussed out a "Search and Rescue" wing of the project that specifically would look at prods to see if there were likely AfD candidates would work to search and if those items later tagged for XfD they would follow the spirit of what we do by tagging the item and adding a note at the XfD discussion on why it should be kept in some way. So yes, Prods are a natural extension of ARS's work but no, we have no systems in place besides well-meaning editors such as yourself who will watch the prod and XfD categories for rescuable content. At some point we likely should have a few folks who regularly work in those areas jot up some helpful hints for others interested. Our goal, of course, would be to correctly identify content that should be kept rather than simply everything. Some stuff should be merged, redirected etc. and often that judgment comes from experience rather than passion. -- Banjeboi 20:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles currently tagged with rescue template

Is it just me or are the "Articles currently tagged" on this page now hugely out of date? Artw (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

yeah, it is really out of date. I wish we could just go to Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Find_your_interest_--deletion_sorting_pages like every other project do, see #Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#separate_deletion_page above Ikip (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I seem to be missing the point of the above, Ikip - why can't you just look at Category:Articles_tagged_for_deletion_and_rescue to get the articles listed? Or do you need a separate page for some purpose? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
That would seem to be the place to get an up-to-date list. I'm wondering if the list on the talk page should just go - if it isn't up to date it serves no useful purpose. Artw (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Like WP:AFDT and the deletion sorting on wikiprojects you can actually see all the AFD discussions on one page. Ikip (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
If you just want a page where they are all transcluded, I could run a bot to do that.... Fritzpoll (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Fritzpoll, THANK YOU SO MUCH. Let me ask Ben first let him comment here. I need to learn python, I am getting to be okay with autohotkey. Ikip (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
If there's a wider consensus within this project that such a page might be useful, then I can certainly look into it. You should be aware from comments on my talkpage, however, that such a bot may meet with opposition. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I would, TBH, settle for the list on this page either being brought up to date on a regular basis or removed. Artw (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, i see the out of date list is gone, replaced by the links. Artw (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Apologies for being gone for a while, I've been busy in RL. ARSbot stopped working a while ago and I was the main updater of the list before that. I was being personally attacked so I generally took a step back from everything including AfD processes as I didn't want the tin hat crowd to swarm AfDs and corrupt the processes more than they otherwise might be. LOL! Anyhoo Thaddeus has agreed to help us revamp and relaunch a new ARSbot-like bot and I simply hadn't given him all the deets. We indeed need a currently tagged list as it helps those who prefer to not have to guess by the title of an article if they can indeed help, its date-ordering structures a timeline of which items are likely to be closest/furthest from their theoretical 7-day discussion deadline and, and possibly most important, it remains the only record of this project's work. My goal is that 2010 will be the first complete year we have successfully tracked every item tagged for rescue, no matter the outcome of the XfD itself. -- Banjeboi 20:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion open request for comment and pages

Ikip (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ikip, you asked me to comment on how I generated "Overturned speedy deletions". This was done mostly by reviewing DRV, and to a lesser extent by manually examining searching the deletion log for undeletions. It's really hard to keep up to date though, since these happen so often. Dcoetzee 06:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

sorry

I am, somehow, completely flummoxed as to how to properly add the rescue tag to Muslim Mafia (book) so that the "deletion discussion" reference turns from red to blue and links directly to the discussion. For the moment I put in a workaround (pasting in the url), but could use some kind soul's help ... second time I've screwed this sort of effort up. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Alerts for articles newly added to the list?

I'm new to this project so excuse me if this has been discussed previously. Is there a way to let participants know when a new page is maked {{Rescue}}. I have the 'articles currently tagged for rescue' transcluded to my userpage but being that they are listed alphabeticaly rather than chronologicly it is sometimes difficult to figure out which, if any, are new. Perhaps changing the list so they are chronological is the answer? J04n(talk page) 14:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would it matter which are new? If you have time to add references to an article, go to the category list, pick and article, and start referencing it! Hipocrite (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Or people nominating something for deletion could have an actual reason, instead of just wikilawyering. They could also do a brief search of Google news and Google books BEFORE nominating something, that saving time for a lot of us. Dream Focus 16:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Candy could rain down from the heavens as well. Hipocrite (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • A chronological sorting would be useful. The links change color after the first time you click on them, helping remember which ones you already read through. Having them listed in the order they were added, would make it easier to keep track of though. Dream Focus 16:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)I generally skip a number of articles in areas where I don't do much work (fiction, entertainment BLPs) and usually don't remember why I didn't do anything on one of the articles in the category from day to day. A chronological listing would be far easier for me to quickly browse. Something along the lines of User:AlexNewArtBot or Wikipedia:Article alerts would be great. Unfortunately neither of those processes works in the way that we would need, and there is still no method to monitor articles that have been recently added to a category. It might be worth writing something up at WP:Bot requests to see of someone has an everyday bot that could do this kind of thing. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 16:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Once the current list is again up and running it essentially provides the chronological list. I used to hand sort it into date the XfD started as that, in theory meant the items with the fewest days left needed more eyes asap. -- Banjeboi 16:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Any progress with that new list? Ikip (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Find

I got sick of trying to figure out how to add parameters to find so created Wikipedia:Find. Any help and tweaks appreciated. -- Banjeboi 14:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably better at Help:Find or Template:Findsources/doc. Taemyr (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I added it to Template:Findsources/doc, but what is Help:Find? -- Banjeboi 12:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

About a deleted article

There was an article on "Euan Blair", one of the sons of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, but it was deleted. I have been puzzled about this article deletion, because he is a household name in the UK as far as I am aware. Should the article be rescued? Snowman (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There was; there was a discussion about it here and it's gone. I wouldn't have said he's a household name, not yet anyway. Articles that have already been deleted can't be "rescued" in the sense of the Article Rescue Squadron, but there are ways of refrieving them. If you think that you can rewrite this article addressing the concerns of the AfD discussion, you can ask the deleting administrator (User:NuclearWarfare) to userfy it - ie create a page in your userspace (eg "User:Snowmanradio/Euan Blair") so that you can work on it. If you do this it's best to get some input on the job you've done before moving it back into mainspace.   pablohablo. 22:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand that there is a wiki process in which the deletion of articles is reviewed. In this case I think that the one extra day only that was allowed for extra discussion was not long enough, and this may provide the basis of getting the article back. Perhaps, this project one day might have a task-force to help where the deletion process was suspect. The task force could host the page created in a project subpage and have them indexed rather then all over the place in users subpages. Snowman (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
With a deletion review you mean? Possibly, if the close was suspect. Have you visited the WP:Article Incubator? Could be the task force you're looking for.   pablohablo. 23:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I plan to look at that wiki project in a bit more detail. That sister wikiproject could be in a navbox on this page. There appear to be a lot of facilities around here that I have never seen before. Snowman (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I would recommend the incubator also. Ikip (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Article is now located at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Euan Blair. DRV would be a waste of your time, as the AfD !voting was well within normal delete range. For better or worse, Wikipedia has an unwritten rule that children on celebrities are rarely notable which is what drove most !votes. The article is going to have to be of stellar quality to survive in the long run. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I am glad it is available in incubator form, although it may need a lot of work and it is not an easy one to rescue. There are lots of famous children of famous parents on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject banners with quality assessment

Do you think a kind of wikiproject banner for the talk page of ARS saved articles is a good idea?

It would be wonderful if we started to work towards making some of these rescued articles good or even featured articles. Ikip (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea. Improved articles aren't "ours" they're Wikipedias. If any editors want to keep going with an article they rescued, like me and Yellow Star (book), good for them. It remains my unmodified position that ARS is not a Wikiproject with membership, but a self-selecting improvement process, like 3O, GOCE, MedCab, and the like. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Last time this idea came up the leading idea, IMHO, was finding a way to tag articles talkpages - like within an article history list - so that it would also generate a category of formerly rescue-tagged items. This would help us see how many have progressed up the quality scale. -- Banjeboi 02:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

ThaddeusB or similar wonky-genius challenge

So {{ArticleHistory}} seems to be the magic template to tag most of ARS's work; it wouldn't cover CfD, TfD, etc but that remains a minor part of our work. We need to add in use of the tag in conjunction with AfD - there is a section there just for deletion - but also provide that it automatically adds a category like Category:Articles previously tagged for deletion and rescue which, of course, we would create. In our future bot programming then we would also, in theory, note that a past tagged article is up for deletion again allowing the opportunity to revisit re-rescuing. -- Banjeboi 18:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Getting new members more involved

In my experience of inviting and welcoming hundreds of editors to the squadron, I find that editors respond most postively to specific offers to working collaberatively on a group project.

With this in mind, I modified the welcome template slightly, adding a new subtemplate:

Currently this sub template states:

Beyond rescuing worthy articles, our project needs assistance in:
  1. Creating our next newsletter.
  2. Building/modifying a bot which lists all pages with the rescue template on one page, similar to Category:Wikipedia deletion sorting pages.

Any additional suggestions about this new subtemplate or what this project can use help on? Feel free to edit either template with your ideas. Ikip (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, as I didn't see your note here. I think it's fine to get new folks involved but I do have a few concerns with adding more items to what is already a large template. First off the bot project is underway, I have a draft which I hope to get to ThaddeusB (sp?) Frankly that's pretty technical and involved (dealing with like 5-7 pages for every article tagged) so keeping it simpler would seem to make sense. We also want to nicely get the code in case something fizzles and we need to get things tweaked.
The newsletter, however, holds some promise. I have a caveat there; it should be it's own page that is subst delivered so whatever we sent out in Oct remains frozen in time and is in the newsletter archives rather than updated across all users like we seemed to do last time. Similar to the Wikipost, it's written, delivered and that's that.
A suggestion though as you do seem to be eager to encourage those newer to the project. Maybe post a message to those who've signed up since the last newsletter was sent as well as here and ask a few open-ended questions on what would help them rescue content. I seemed to recall from another board that there is a need for sourcing 101 - how to identify, format and cite RS's. Another area that we could look at expanding is the search in search and rescue whereby editors who are interested scan various deletion categories, like prod, and follow-up if they are nommed for XfD. Is anyone started watching the incubator for when a tag for delete is added there? Some of the editors who currently do that could maybe make a search and rescue guide to offer tips for folks who may be interested. -- Banjeboi 16:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I had wondered what happened to the bot req. I thought mayeb it was abandoned. Good to know that isn't the case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I wont mention the bot, just the news.
We started a search and rescue guide, remember? Michael is working on his own newbie guide too.
Give me a format of one of the questions? Ikip (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I would ask very open-ended questions like What do you find are the biggest challenges to editing content on Wikipedia and what would make things easier? and Is there any specific advice that you've found particularly helpful to improving articles? and With your involvement with ARS, what do you enjoy the most and what newer skills would you like to learn (if anything)? I suggest setting up a separate page and you move items witha trackback link to each users' talkpage. The subpage is to help compiled a very unofficial but meaningful survey to lead to content that newer members have deemed important/useful. We then write the newsletter to cater to their interests giving due weight to how many cite various topics. For instance if most cite that they like sourcing or want to learn that we place that higher and ensure we offer handy/helpful content. In future newsletters we can link to past subjects if they remain relevant. This is also why each newsletter needs to be its own subpage. -- Banjeboi 18:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification

From: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people

Notifying WikiProjects that support the page

Many projects have subscribed to Wikipedia's article alerts service, a fully automated program that keeps track of AfD discussions for subscribed projects. Projects that have not subscribed may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page about the AfD.

It is incredibly easy to use. How are things coming with the new bot Ben? I would be happy to help. Ikip (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Partizan Press

Hey there,

I don't know anything about this publisher, but if anyone has any non-primary sources to add, feel free to give it a shot. BOZ (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on improving efficiency of the project

Hi all, I'm fairly new to this project so I hope you all don't mind my suggestions. My first suggestion is that pages should be added to the 'list' in a similar fashion to the WP:DELSORT pages so that a) watchlists would show additions and b) it could be chronologically listed rather than alphabetically; but evidently a bot is being designed to do this so I'll put that on hold. But let me say that I'm not a big bot fan and DELSORT works quite well with manual additions. Next, there should be some kind of signaling as to what on the list is being looked at, worked on, needs assistance, or has been improved. This could be similar to WP:GAN, this way if one sees that someone is already addressing article 'A' they could move to 'B', but if the editor of 'A' needs some assistance it could be marked as such, then when the editor(s) are satisfied that it has been brought to a rescued level it can be marked as such so no one else will have to address it. I also want to emphasize that the rescue tag is a call to improve an article, it shouldn't be a call to !vote. Once the article is well sourced & expanded the Keep !votes follow and often the AfD is withdrawn. J04n(talk page) 02:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Great suggestions
"I also want to emphasize that the rescue tag is a call to improve an article, it shouldn't be a call to !vote."
If I am understanding you, to my knowledge only detractors call the rescue tag a !vote.
Yes, and we shouldn't be giving them ammunition J04n(talk page) 02:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
"This could be similar to WP:GAN, this way if one sees that someone is already addressing article 'A' they could move to 'B', but if the editor of 'A' needs some assistance it could be marked as such, then when the editor(s) are satisfied that it has been brought to a rescued level it can be marked as such so no one else will have to address it."
You meant a pass, fail, on hold, second opinion system? Like that page? Could you greatly expand on this idea on how this would relate to ARS?
Thanks again for your wonderful ideas!
Can I ask you if you have any wonderful ideas for Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Newsletter and our second newsletter? (maybe you can start a new section with ideas)? Ikip (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I did a poor job of explaining, I meant something similar to these, sorry. Let me try again; when I choose an article that I want to rescue I mark it as "attempting rescue", this way other rescuers see that someone is already working on it and can focus their energy on another article. Then if during my rescue attempt I feel that I need some help to get it up to standards I could mark it "needs assistance", alerting rescuers that more help is needed. Finally, when I decide that it has been brought up to a level that it could pass an AfD I can mark it "complete". I suppose a fourth option could be "attempted but unable to rescue" but that would go against the spirit of this project. Does that make sense? Also, thank you for suggesting I contribute to the newsletter, I'll give it some thought. J04n(talk page) 02:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I think less definitive notes are more helpful. We should never assume anything is saved until the XfD closes, we've learned that lesson too many times. In the past folks have noted various things in the listings but with the volume of @ 4-7 per day it was uneven and frankly comments should stay on the XfD or possibly article talkpage as they nearly universally are on sourcing or notability (which has to be sourced). I don't mean to be a wet blanket here however we should be realistic on what likely will work. -- Banjeboi 18:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Wet blankets are welcome, I don't want to waste my time. I agree with not assuming anything which was why I suggested "complete" rather than "saved". I have no problem with changing the terminology. I just think this will help everyone know where in the process an article is. J04n(talk page) 19:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with both of you. Jo4n, how about adapting a model of sorts, on a test page say, User:J04n/test so we can all understand 100% what you envision, and other editors can comment and tweek the idea. I agree with Ben though...But your idea has potential, maybe in another form? Ikip (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I also think its a good idea so hope you create the test page! Ben makes a good point, sometimes even when the article has been vastly improved with top rank sources and is clearly in policy, it still gets deleted if enough deletionists show up. It would be create to think that improving an article is all thats needed to save it, but in reality voting is always important. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The test page will be ready in a week or so. J04n(talk page) 12:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It is just Great you are part of the team J04n. I think your idea holds promise, although like most clever ideas, the original idea maybe vastly different than the final result, but no less ingenious in the end. Ikip (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I played with my idea and didn't like anything that I came up with. I think the best plan would be to list the articles up for rescue in a similar (or the same) fashion as theWikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting pages. This way folks can watchlist the page and see when articles are added and can also see the discussions.J04n(talk page) 13:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Rescuing article

I'm not sure what the process here really entails, but I figure that some of you would be interested in helping out with User:Ohms law/Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116. There was an AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 (3rd nomination), which closed with a delete, but I asked the closing admin to userfy the article. I wouldn't think that it'll take much to transform it into an article about the Swedish naming law (which is a process that I've already begun), so any assistance that anyone could provide would be appreciated.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

looks like it has already been rescued. Things are slow around here lately so you may not get a response quickly. Ikip (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about a new template to notify new editors after their article is deleted

Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator#What.27s_that_template_called.3F Ikip (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation Possibly Copyvio

Hey. I've asked for help at some other locations (here and here) but haven't had any luck (the groups I posted to have huge backlogs of work to do). I thought some ARSs would be able to help.

From my short history with this page, it has had some issues with weasel words and has sounded like an advertisement. Recently, a user by the name of Aimeeswartz has made a very large change to the page and one that I find is very closely related to the text found on the MMRF official website save for a few word changes. I have reverted the edit twice now and am asking that other editors come to make a judgment on issue on the talk page. I would also like to note that Aimeeswartz has claimed (see edit note) that she is a writer for the MMRF (search for "Aimee" in this MMRF newsletter). I assume this is true but does not allow her to use the copyrighted material without written permission by the MMRF. I directed her to WP:DCM so that we may bypass this entire issue if possible. Also, I placed a COI tag on the article as an employee of the foundation is editing the article. Any help anyone else could provide would be greatly appreciated. OlYellerTalktome 14:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

just noticed your posting. Things are a little slow here lately. Maybe better to attach a rescue tag if it is not copyvio. Ikip (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
We ok with doing that even though it's not in AfD yet? Haven't been around for a while. I don't know what's acceptable use of the tag atm. OlYellerTalktome 23:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
oh no, sorry just glanced at your posting. My apologies. Let me look at this more clearly. Ikip (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Reading this section more closely, wow, this looks like something out of the scope of ARS. We don't really deal with copyright material or editor disputes like this. I would maybe ask an admin to review this. Or ask for a mentor review. Check out Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal or any of Template:Dispute-resolution issues if you feel you cannot resolve the problem together. Ikip (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
There really isn't an argument going on and I see no need for mediation (was more of a misunderstanding). I think the new editor was under the assumption that it was ok to post because she works for the MMRF. I'm going with the assumption that I think I'm right but may be wrong. All I want is for any editors to come check out the page and the edit so that, if reverted again which I doubt it will be, the page will be rescued from deletion. OlYellerTalktome 15:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I will watch list the page, sorry I could not be more help. Ikip (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

The article was a previous candidate for ARS, and has returned.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Wcquidditch/wikideletionyesterday#Images_and_media_for_deletion

Shows all deletions in all categories, from yesterday. Ikip (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of the Article rescue sqaud

Resolved
 – removed notification, counseled new member. Ikip 02:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello all i am wanting to report a user for misuse. THe user User:Scieberking Signed up today and imettidalee started to post on my talk page to hlep rescue a article they create and is up for deletion, to me if they have jsut joined and trying ot rescue there article this is canvassing esicpally if they have contacted other users. I am not sure on whatr can be done but i thought i should bring this up as it could giv ethe article rescue sqaud a bad name--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The new ARS member contacted Andrewcrawford himself alone about an article up for deletion. I removed the message and counseled the new ARS member not to do this again.[2] Ikip 02:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

New way to list articles for rescue

Ikip started a new page, Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Current articles, that we can list articles for rescue on. It is structured similar to the deletion sorting pages. After adding {{rescue}} to the article page, the AfD can be transcluded to the new page. Now you can watchlist the new page and find out easily when new pages are in need of rescue. J04n(talk page) 22:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jo4n. See: Wikipedia:Bot_requests#WP:Article_Rescue_Squadron_deletion_sorting_page Requesting this bot. Ikip 23:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Added header to talk page

I added the header which is on most of the ars pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Tab header/talk page I think this helps editors, especially new editors navigate our project. I originally got the idea from the largest wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. I would like to add this header to the main page, but I would like to get everyone else's opinion. Ikip 00:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Worth rescue?

Is this worth rescue? Thanks. The main page implies it's OK to ask here despite the lack of AfD tag.--Elvey (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I would move it to the talk page, collapse it, and discuss it.
As I understand it, one of the fucked up things about wikipedia is that sourced article contributions can be deleted by anyone, but talk page comments by volunteers are sacred. As soon as that contribution becomes a talk page contribution, it is sacred.
You can discuss almost anything here. So although your question is something we don't deal with usually, your question is welcome. Ikip (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and collapsed it on the talk page. Ikip (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for being so helpful! I'm smiling. And laughing. The last time I asked a question like that, I got my head cut off. --Elvey (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

possible ARS pic from ben's talk page

Ikip 21:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Coolest barnstar I have ever seen, from User_talk:Everyking#Shameless_thankspam maybe we can do something like this?:

Barnstar

text

Deletion sorting

Per my message here before: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_46#Find_your_interest_--deletion_sorting_pages

I was thinking of modifying the... {{User Article Rescue Squadron}}


...tag to allow editors to add a deletion sorting pages sentence. If someone does not modify the template, the template will stay exactly the same. Existing {{User Article Rescue Squadron}} on editors user pages will stay the same. 

{{userbox
| border-c = lightgrey
| id       = [[Image:Life_Preserver.svg|44px]]
| id-c     = white
| info     = This user [[:Category:Articles_tagged for deletion and rescue|rescues articles]] for the  '''[[Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron|Article Rescue Squadron]]'''.<br> <small>Monitoring [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Football|football]] deletion sorting for rescue.</small> 
| info-c   = lightgrey
}}{{#ifeq:{{lc:}}|no||[[Category:Wikipedians in the Article Rescue Squadron|User Article Rescue Squadron]]}}

I think this will encourage other editors to patrol and tag deletion sorting pages.

I can play with this template on my own userspace first so as not to disrupt other editors.

Or in the alternative, I can create a separate template.

Thoughts, comments? Anyone out there?

I know there are a lot of lurking members of ARS watching this page, just not a lot of activity at ARS. :( Ikip 15:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Listing the articles with rescue tag: Fritzpoll and/or Thaddeus can you create the bot?

From above J04n wrote:

... I still think that listing the articles better would help. Is there a reason that we don't list them like deletion sorting pages? J04n(talk page) 15:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
This is taking to long (months), I will create a page, and manually add the info myself. Please help! Thanks for the inspiration. Ikip 17:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
You make the page and I'll populate it. I regularly patrol AfD so I'll keep it up to date. J04n(talk page) 17:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Current_articles Let me talk to an editor above, who knows how to fix a bot, in the meantime, you can WP:wikignome (care for) the list, thanks. Ikip 17:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on this. I think the list is now up-to-date. Ikip 18:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
As per:
Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_46#Articles_currently_tagged_with_rescue_template
Thaddeus and/or Fritzpoll can you please make a bot which automatically pulls from the deletion page (not the article page because we need to take into account the 2nd, 3rd, fourth, etc. nominations) articles tagged for rescue, and then lists them on Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Current_articles?
Similar to what we have here now: Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Current_articles? Thank you in advance. Ikip 18:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Sorry im not Thaddeus or Fritzpoll, but I saw your request and coded the bot. Its pretty simple, but here is a test dif. There is a lot of whitespace but thats ok, it dosent affect the readout. If thats ok, Ill file a BRFA. Any response? Tim1357 (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Let's see how it works. So to see if I understand its function: Pages with {{rescue}} will be added with the newest on top, and when the tag is removed they'll be dropped? What will the estimated lag time be? J04n(talk page) 05:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
As of now, there is no particular order to the pages. It is not hard to change that, if there is need. Also, I was considering running the bot nightly, but I could run it every time a page gets tagged with {{rescue}}. I could even do it automatically upon request (the bot starts every time someone edits a trigger page, ect). Its up to you guys. Tim1357 (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
(oh yeah and I fixed the whitespace problem) Tim1357 (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Once nightly is fine, I would prefer if the newly added articles are placed at the top. Then it's easier to figure what the new ones are and that the ones at the bottom (generally) have less time left (like is done at the deletion sorting pages). J04n(talk page) 10:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, Ill get to coding the bot so that it sorts them by time. Tim1357 (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Im done! Note that I had to include <!--Articlename--> as metadata. The bot will work best if it is the only one editing the page, because I did not code for human error. I hope that's ok. Ill file the BRFA right now.Tim1357 (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Rescue bounty board?

What if we had something like Wikipedia:Bounty board for rescue templated articles? I would seriously strongly consider donating if anyone rescues articles I template. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

ouch, that would open a can of worms. Anyone else's thoughts? Ikip 18:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
A Nobody, the more I think of this, I can see so many pitfalls with this. Accusations of canvassing, paid editing, etc. If you want to try it (and I suggest you don't) do it without ARS involvement, and see what the backlash is like... Ikip 18:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
doing this after a AFD closed would not be a problem. I know there are many articles which we save which are put up for deletion repeatedly. Ikip 21:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Article Rescue Squadron/New pages patrol

After reading User:WereSpielChequers inspiring interview for the next newsletter, where he gives advice about WP:New Page Patrol, I messaged him that there has been repeated questions and interest about New pages patrol and Criteria for speedy deletion on this talk page.

Many wikiprojects have sub-projects. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force is a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations

Due to the continued interested in New pages patrol, another editor who is involved in new page patrol is welcome to create the sub-project WP:Article Rescue Squadron/New pages patrol right now. Editors can share ideas about New Page Patrol, discuss Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (Prod) pages, and get advice and guidance from veteran editors.

Ikip 06:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why even bother?

Personally, I don’t understand the deletionists on this site—why would you exclude content?—but, as destruction will always be easier than creation, they will always win in the end. Seems like this “Article Rescue Squadron” is a lost cause. Sideburns Sam (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't take such a negative view. Worthy articles can and are regularly rescued, plus there are articles that should be deleted. If anything and everything were included on Wikipedia it would diminish the importance of the truly notable subjects. Also it isn't "inclusionists" vs "exclusionists", everyone is doing their part to improve the project the best way they believe to be correct. Checks and balances are never a bad thing. Happy editing J04n(talk page) 03:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Also remember Wikipedia is still growing by approximately a thousand articles a day...... ϢereSpielChequers 12:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Famous last words, I think we could be in for a 2% contraction in the next few weeks. However the admins involved seem to be happy to restore deleted articles if people are willing to reference them, so if anyone is willing to do the work just put a note on the deleting admin's talkpage. ϢereSpielChequers 12:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletion of unsourced BLPs

An admin is mass deleting unsourced BLPs out of process. I'm guessing ARS members might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rdm2376's deletions. Fences&Windows 11:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well technically it's a proposal to mass prod but now that it is off ANI and more widely advertised it seems to be getting a more balanced discussion. -- Banjeboi 11:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
If anyone wants to rescue a few articles, check out Category:All unreferenced BLPs and try finding references for a few of those articles. ϢereSpielChequers 12:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
No, the articles were deleted without any process. No CSD criterion, no expired prod, no AfD. The deletions are by fiat. Fences&Windows 17:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Fences and Windows on this one. Is the deleting admin making demonstrating any effort to try referencing these articles first, to discuss with their creators, etc.? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
For once, I agree with you, even though I had thought your project was a mistake. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The level of immaturity and fanaticism is indeed mindblowing. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I was checking articles proposed for deletion and noticed a huge spike in nominations today, eventually I saw some of the major drama going on. Many of these prods can be de-prodded in good faith if you add one or two simple references, which is more effort than the nominators are making. I would suggest that 95% of BLPs present none of the problems that make a few admins freak out.--Milowent (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, after I followed the link to this Wikipedia Review nonsense, I found nice comments like "It's beyond the point of fixing now. Clean the slate, start fresh if the subjects are indeed notable, and source right from the outset. Leaving crap around waiting for the slackjawed retards that comprise the vaunted "Article Rescue Squadron" to get around to them, someday, should not be an option on the table." This is pathetic.--Milowent (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
(e/c}I do PROD patrol pretty regularly, and usually most of the stuff there can just be allowed to go. Milowent is right about the ease of contesting a PROD. I actually PRODded my first article today, and sourced three or four, while checking out the WPNJ cleanup list. Between article alerts and cleanup listings, my biggest concern is that articles not tagged for WikiProjects will get the least attention. And WP:Biography is just too massive to even watch. Really, no article should be subject to PROD without a talk page, but I'm not ready to push that particular issue during all of the current discussions. If you are participating here at ARS, and you don't already do Prod Patrol, it might be time to add it to your to-do list. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 21:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The best use of ARS time at the moment may be patrolling the most recent PRODS - its going up quickly (over 230 right now, about twice the normal number). Adding a few quick dirty bare URLs will render an "unsourced BLP" PROD moot, though its only a temporary solution.--Milowent (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

The discussion has now moved to a request for comment. 60,000 articles are at issue in this discussion. Ikip 22:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ospina Coffee Company Article Needs Your Help!!

Resolved
 – Nominator agreed to close AFD. Come to find out company has been run by 3 Colombia presidents. Ikip 17:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Could the Article Rescue Squadron please help save this article about the story of coffee and Ospina Coffee in Colombia. The article is Titled: Ospina Coffee Company. I need help to upload hundreds of references. Thank you very much for your most valuable help, --Grancafe (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not resolved. Flowanda | Talk 08:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
hello, I removed a lot of the material to talk. hope that helps. By resolved I mean that the article survived the first deletion. When I left the article it was well sourced, and much smaller. Since then it has grown three to four times the size. I asked the editor to scale back, but he really didn't. Hope my edits help. Ikip Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):an olympic medallist for f**k's sake 09:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request.

Resolved
 – Sources added regardless of requestors motivations. -- Banjeboi 02:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Péter Medgyessy is obviously notable. However, the article has been unsourced since 11-06. If it dosen't get sourced, it'll get deleted. I know you typically wait till the AFD nom, but could some of you more able to deal with this provide assistance? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Colonel Warden (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Things like that remind me why I want to delete this project. I'll remember to AFD first and then listen to you complain later. Hipocrite (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Things like this remind me why I want to delete editors like that. Is there an EfD process?--Milowent (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hipocrite, there is no need to be an ass--especially since your gutting of articles is counterproductive and unjustified. I submit as evidence this edit, and anyone who is interested can look at the subsequent edit history of David M. Malone to see just how highly notable this person is. Submit articles like that to AfD and you'll end up with a lot of egg on your face. Funny, this morning I was accused of being an all-out deletionist, and now I find myself posting on the opposite side's project. I think I like it better in the middle and that, Hipocrite, is where I'd much rather meet you than here. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Drmies, glad to see my favorite Fred fan over here. Wow, what drama has been brewing while I was happily sourcing little 'ol winery articles. 5% of BLPs that have problems appear to be causing a burning of the library at Alexandria right now.--Milowent (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Yup, and it ain't over yet. Look, I'm the last guy to want to rescue BLPs of non-notables, or with libelous statements, but this is getting ridiculous. Look at this edit, for shits and giggles. BTW, how you doin'? Drmies (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Milowent, yes absolutely there is an Editor for Deletion process. ϢereSpielChequers 22:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It took me less than 10 minutes, and 2 google news searches to add 2 New York Times sources to the article. The time spent pontificating could be far better spent adding some sources to some of these articles. Done a few of those, too. As completely frustrating as it is to see people do useless drive-by tagging instead of following WP:SOFIXIT and WP:BEFORE, sometimes its just easier to add the sources. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 23:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I was adding the too editors who sourced this article into the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame and I note that Hipocrite PRODed this article with the edit summary: "PROD this shit". I left Hipocrite a note on his talk page.[3] Ikip Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):an olympic medallist for f**k's sake 21:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_46&oldid=1144712937"