Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron
|Article Rescue Squadron|
|faq page||Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)|
|This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please review the discussions if considering re-nomination:|
|Threads older than 30 days may be archived by.|
|Article Rescue Squadron was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 5 March 2014. If you wish to get involved with the Signpost, please visit the Newsroom.|
- 1 Talk:Banc De Binary
- 2 Discussion notice
- 3 Free subscriptions to journal and source websites
- 4 maintaining of articles
- 5 Request for Feedback on grant proposal for notability detection
- 6 Help me create a Request for Comment asking that Jimmy Wales step down
- 7 "Gutting" an article during deletion discussion
Very strange how this protected AfD is being, er, "protected". I asked for your template to be posted atop it and was denied because there is no consensus. Really? Can anyone let me know whether you'd like to contribute there to consensus that the article should be listed for rescue? Thank you. Much more but that's what applies. In the meantime it seems that posting your template on the talk page is either good IAR or not actually ignoring any rule. Okteriel (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is occurring at Template talk:Find sources regarding updating the Find sources template with links to the Google News and Google newspapers searches. Interested editors are invited to contribute to the discussion. The discussion is located here. NorthAmerica1000 08:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Google news is working again. So the guy who removed it can just put that back in. I did mention the Google newspaper a few sections above this, and just above where you created that new section on his page. He said on his talk page back then  to get more people to notice and discuss it. Dream Focus 08:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Free subscriptions to journal and source websites
Free access subscriptions to high quality paywalled journals, newspaper archives, and online reference works are presently available for Wikipedia editors. For more information, see Wikipedia:TWL/Journals. NorthAmerica1000 11:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm so glad I can get my Highbeam account back. Without it, referencing articles was just so much more difficult than it was before. Everyone should sign up for that who wants to rescue articles. Dream Focus 15:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
maintaining of articles
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 166#maintaining means deleting?! (Idot (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC))
- After years of arguing that point, I don't see any reason to keep doing it. Some misguided people believe they are somehow helping the encyclopedia by removing articles from it. If its not something you are interested in, you wouldn't ever find your way to it unless you went looking for it. But whatever. Jimbo Wales created Wikia and a massive number of Wikipedia articles got deleted here, and transwikied or recreated over there, allowing him to make a lot of money. Dream Focus 15:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Request for Feedback on grant proposal for notability detection
Hi, I've posted a grant proposal for an IEG for using machine learning to determine the notability of articles. I thought it might be of interest to you because one of the problems we're trying to solve with this is that patrollers and reviewers often delete or reject articles or AfC drafts whose topics are notable, but the articles themselves don't meet some standard that they've created. We want to be able to determine notability of the topic independent of the quality of the article, and hopefully convince those vetting the articles to take a second look rather than just deleting. We also can potentially create a tool that you can use to find notable articles in danger of being deleted that can use some fixing up. I'm sure you'll have plenty of ideas about what things to look at that are good signals of notability, and also important caveats to keep in mind. Please come on over to IEG proposal and let us know what you think! Thanks, Bluma.Gelley (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Help me create a Request for Comment asking that Jimmy Wales step down
|The singularity is not near: slowing growth of Wikipedia|
|The rate of reverts-per-edits (or new contributions rejected) and the number of pages protected has kept increasing.
The greater resistance towards new content has made it more costly for editors, especially occasional editors, to make contribution. We argue that this may have contributed, with other factors, to the slowdown in the growth of Wikipedia.
I want to create a request for comment with some long term members of the Article Rescue Squadron.
This request for comment would argue that the only way to reverse the negative trend of deleting other editors good faith edits would be for Jimmy Wales to step down.
- Who is this brand new account who feels that removing the figurehead would suddenly make thousands of other editors begin treating WP:IMPERFECT, WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE as policies? Sorry Walterruss, but this request would not benefit Wikipedia. Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- This is stupid drama-mongering. Some of us may still be in high school, but Wikipedia is not high school.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
(sic) "This Rfc has been closed due to the general consensus that if the users had the authority to make such a decision (and we do not), then we would decide that Jimbo Wales should keep his job as long as he is possibly able and willing. This discussion was also closed due to the fact that the Rfc proposer claimed to have registered as a new user for the first time only three hours prior to making this rather silly suggestion here. Scott P. (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)"
- IE: You don't tug on Superman's cape. You don't spit into the wind. You don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger. And you don't mess around with Jim. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support I support such an RfC, and I disagree with Michael's comic strip view of what Wikipedia is. DuncanHill (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose WP:SPA account User:Walterruss's emailing editors (as he did me) and posting the same RFC at different locations is forum shopping that could be seen as disruptive and possibly deserving of a block (not that it would prevent the return of anyone so determined).
- Just as was done elsewhere, this should be closed here as well. We edit at Jimbo's sufferance. He does not do so at ours. Mr. Wales voluntarily resigning is unlikely to happen and he will not be forced to leave by two or three or even four disgruntled voices out of the 22 million+ user accounts. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest that this RFC to request an RFC can be closed per WP:NOTHERE. Schmidt, Michael Q. 22:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppoose now I looked at a dictionary what the phrasal verb "step down" means... see my comments about Wikipedia without Jimbo (Idot (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC))
- note now I looked at a dictionary what the phrasal verb "step down" means... (Idot (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC))
the only way to reverse the negative trend of deleting other editors good faith edits would be for Jimmy Wales to step down... Walterruss
there is no Jimbo in Russian Wikipedia, however Deletists in Russian Wikipedia MUCH STRONGER than in English Wikipedia, so your's suggestion will make situation much worsen (Idot (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC))
"Gutting" an article during deletion discussion
I've created an essay on Gutting an article during deletion discussion.
You may find it interesting reading at: User:Cirt/Gutting.