Jump to content

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Members: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→All Members: add name
Line 149: Line 149:
# [[User:Banime|Banime]] ([[User talk:Banime|talk]]) 22:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
# [[User:Banime|Banime]] ([[User talk:Banime|talk]]) 22:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
# [[User:MathCool10|<span style="color:green">Math</span>]][[User talk:MathCool10|<span style="color:red">Cool</span>]][[Special:Contributions/MathCool10|<span style="color:darkblue">10</span>]] 02:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
# [[User:MathCool10|<span style="color:green">Math</span>]][[User talk:MathCool10|<span style="color:red">Cool</span>]][[Special:Contributions/MathCool10|<span style="color:darkblue">10</span>]] 02:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
# [[User:Iamthejustice|Iamthejustice]] ([[User talk:Iamthejustice|talk]]) 08:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
<!--Please don't forget to add: {{Template:User Article Rescue Squadron}} to your user page-->
<!--Please don't forget to add: {{Template:User Article Rescue Squadron}} to your user page-->


Revision as of 08:11, 4 December 2008

Code of conduct

  • Rescue Squad is not about casting votes (and therefore not about vote-stacking). If you come across an article that has been tagged for rescue, make a good faith effort to improve it through regular editing before you vote.
  • Show the light. If you vote for an article after fixing it, try to describe in your vote which problems have been fixed, and address any remaining deficiencies that others should be aware of (for example, lack of organization, structural problems, lack of balance, etc.)
  • Avoid making a fuss. If an article has been rewritten by Squad members, a comment should be placed in the AfD as a courtesy. Rescue Squad members should lead by example staying focused on improving articles and avoiding unproductive debates. Although the AfD process is short we still should allow for the attitude at the AfD to change after an article has been improved or rewritten.

To join ARS

To join the Article Rescue Squadron, add your name to the end of the list.

You can insert your name and the current date automatically by typing four tildes: 

~~~~

If you like, you can also add a comment after your name.

Userbox

Please place the below Userbox on your UserPage by adding the following code:

{{Template:User Article Rescue Squadron}}

This user rescues articles for the Article Rescue Squadron.

Admin Members

Note: some admins are only listed in the main members list

All Members

  1. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 18:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. QueerAsFolk, 18:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC) - Something needs to be fixed about deletion, and this is one good place to start.[reply]
  4. Rebecca 02:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC) - Count me in.[reply]
  5. Fuzheado | Talk - I suppose I'm obliged to sign up as my blog post instigated much of this. :) There is too much emphasis on pruning, filtering and destroying, but without the cooperative community discussion, {{sofixit}} culture, and a roll up your sleeves attitude.
  6. Catherine\talk 05:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC) - I'll help where I can.[reply]
  7. Davewild 19:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC) - Where I can help will do so.[reply]
  8. DGG (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC) - The key is balance, and willingnesss to improve articles--if everyone participated in one Afd and fixed one article and found one hopeless article to delete, we could really improve WP.[reply]
  9. Sjc 09:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC) - Long overdue. Wikipedia is not paper [1] - keep that link to hand, it is the number one weapon we have in our arsenal against the rapine depredations of the deletionists.[reply]
  10. Thespian 10:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC) - This proactive sort of movement warms the cockles of my inclusionist heart.[reply]
  11. Canley 11:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC) - My proudest moments on Wikipedia have been rescuing articles from the jaws of AfD with a spot of referencing and rewriting. I'd be delighted to be a part of this much-needed team.[reply]
  12. Dc76 12:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC) - Hi. I just saw the article about forming of this discussion group on Signpost, and I would like to join in. My reasons for joining are the ones presented above e.g. by DGG and Fuzheado. I suggest to start something like "AfR" (Articles for Rescue), where any person can nominate articles. The idea, as I understand, would be 1) to have a short discussion about what can be done with the particular article to improve it (or to recongnize it was unsalvageble), with specific propositions followed by 2) concrete actions ("I can do this. Here I am doing it. Now could you plz do that.") and 3) a final "vote" to see if the article has reached a level where it can be moved to mainspace.[reply]
  13. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. DickClarkMises 20:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Wl219 21:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Thewinchester (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Having had to advocate for the deletion of bad articles such as Out Now Consulting and save Karrinyup Shopping Centre from crazed deletionists who don't know how to use cleanup tags, I can totally understand the purpose of this group.[reply]
  17. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 05:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Zidel333 AfD breaks my heart. So, I'm happy to help as best I can. :) Please keep me posted of any new info.
  19. Recurring dreams (talk · contribs) Count me in.
  20. Ziji (talk email) 06:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC) It's been bugging me too and now at last a flying squadron to unswat the swatters[reply]
  21. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Thank heavens for something like this.[reply]
  22. Joshdboz 10:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC) This is a great idea. I can't stand when articles are deleted even when the notability of the topic is admitted![reply]
  23. Jaranda wat's sup 20:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC) - Only when it's certain sports articles[reply]
  24. Violask81976 Most definitely.
  25. Gnangarra - notability is a corner stone of Wikipedia it cannot be ignored.
  26. Mathmo Talk, because I am a wild-eyed inclusionist. ;)
  27. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 16:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC) - Somehow I seem to find a lot of Citations for Shopping Centres.[reply]
  28. Zanimum 17:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Presuming the rescued articles remain truly worth rescuing.[reply]
  29. SimonP 17:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Dhartung | Talk 21:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC) This is a lot of what I do already. I vote delete on things, but many times salvageable articles are deleted just because nobody cares to try. Nominators who fail to do research first are only part of the problem.[reply]
  31. MrPrada 07:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC) - Sometimes I wonder if there are more people out there tagging articles then writing them. Sign me up![reply]
  32. T3Smile 16:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC) - I had an article about an Australian Computer Pioneer, Anthony Chidiac, that was deleted and all my thesis work was lost! The guy had so much notable material it was wiped after only being on wikipedia for five days!! count me in![reply]
  33. SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Why? Pretty much exactly what DGG said above. This Wikigroup should not (and presently does not seem to be) an rabid inclusionism force, but rather a balancing factor against the entropy of extremist deletionism, which is clearly rampant.[reply]
  34. DHowell 22:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Sounds like a great idea. I'm also thinking of starting an "Article Adoption Agency" for articles which are useful and/or interesting (which as we all know won't save them from deletion) which get deleted despite the best efforts to rescue them, to find another wiki home to which they can be transwikied.[reply]
  35. Tim Vickers 05:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC) - Drop me a note when biology or medicine articles are nominated as having questionable accuracy/notability. I'll be happy to look into it.[reply]
  36. Dsmdgold I am especially interested in the misuse of the criteria for speedy deletion. Dsmdgold 12:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. xDanielxTalk 22:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. AndyJones. Count me in. 12:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. User:Dreftymac. dr.ef.tymac 16:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Zeborah 06:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC) - I've been trying to do this sort of thing in an off-and-on way for a while; hopefully being part of a group will spur me on to do it some more.[reply]
  41. Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 16:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Kevin Murray 20:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Fosnez 20:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC) - Sign me up![reply]
  44. Ichormosquito I feel at home. Thanks, Fosnez! Article creation should always be encouraged. 05:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Ronabop Brilliant! 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  46. Cricket02 Yes, good idea. Lately I'm finding articles nominated for deletion with just minutes of its creation. To me that is biting the newcomers. I'll agree there are plenty that don't belong, but there are many that need saving too. ♫ Cricket02 01:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Borgardetalk 08:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Neil ム - I am a deletionist, and will happily delete all kinds of rubbish. But topics that should be on Wikipedia but the article is so crappy it needs rescuing from AFD must be saved. I've recsusitated a few myself from AFD by improving them.
  49. Phgao 17:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. I've already done this a few times (most recently Barrington Irving, which was initially speedied), and I'd be happy to see it continue in more formal fashion. JavaTenor 19:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Gordonofcartion. Fine idea. I do lean toward deletionism, but (as others have said above) it's always good to turn around AFDs based on article weaknesses that can be quickly mended. Gordonofcartoon 21:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Kizor. No particular qualifications, but I've been around WP for a while; drop me a line if you need a hand. 00:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Victor falk I like that "Sofixit Spirit" stuff. --Victor falk 14:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Boracay Bill -- I've been doing this sort of stuff as a WP:Wikignome and as a WP:ICU member. Sign me up. 00:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. SevenOfDiamonds 13:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. SarekOfVulcan 20:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC) - I'm in: I love fixing articles.[reply]
  58. Puchiko About a hundred articles are proposed for deletion every day. Surely, not all of them can be hopeless cases. --Puchiko 16:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Chubbles I am ace at determining the notability of musicians and musical ensembles. I'm happy to be contacted about any problem cases.
  60. Jreferee - I am particularly interested in AfD'd articles where there is a huge disagreement over whether a topic is notable and nobody takes any steps to actually reference the article. In other words, where everyone so eager to talk the talk, I'm willing to walk the walk.
  61. Borisu - Wikipedia is too important to let the average mob rule it.
  62. Carcharoth 00:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Laualoha 11:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC) I can help with whatever is needed, as time & drama permits, but can especially try to help with minority articles that are having a hard time being understood as valid. Do my best, anyway.
  64. Andrewa Looks a very worthwhile addition to Wikiculture. See User:Andrewa/creed.
  65. Sasawatcan talk and Edit 20:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. rkmlai (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Superlex (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC) - It's great to see people working to improve articles. Noble cause.[reply]
  68. Harland1 (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Plasma Twa 2 07:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) - Saw this during the afd for Television series considered the greatest ever. Sounds like a noble cause. Sign me up.[reply]
  70. brighterorange (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC) (admin) This is a good idea. I really hate seeing a borderline article, spending effort to fix it, and then seeing that effort wasted because of the 6 delete votes cast before I started![reply]
  71. Abd (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC) I've become aware of many articles on notable subjects deleted based on content arguments. That's serious, and easily used to introduce a subtle POV bias in the encyclopedia, through selective exclusion of "inconvenient" articles. If content arguments couldn't be used, if admins would ignore content arguments, there would still be a need for better oversight of AfDs, for I've seen non-notability used as an argument when notability is, at least, debatable, and there is little harm in the existence of a marginally notable article. But if nobody who understands the notability notices the AfD.... happens all the time.[reply]
  72. Hdt83 Chat 09:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC) I've come across several AFDs where the article was in bad shape but the subject was notable. A good way to help improve Wikipedia. --Hdt83 Chat 09:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. EdDownUnder (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. RoninBK T C 20:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC) I like this idea, this is why I started patrolling AfD in the first place.[reply]
  75. @pple complain 16:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Wageless (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC) I want to be a part of this.[reply]
  77. Explodicle (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Ursasapien (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC) I am amazed by how many good (or potentially good) articles fall foul of PROD, SPEEDY and AFD and it seems that people not getting involved is what allows this to happen - "The only thing necessary for deletion is for good men to do nothing..."'[reply]
  80. MASEM 14:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Naglfar or Gleipnir? (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Good, an organization that is opposed to throwing out stub or small articles. My thanks. Great articles don't just appear, they are formed and edited up to great articles.[reply]
  82. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Paularblaster (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Bilby (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Tinucherian (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Hazillow (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Skeletor 0 (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC) To arms![reply]
  89. Kitty53 (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC) I am so glad something like this exists! I want to save articles on Wikipedia! I don't know why such good articles get deleted, but if I should ever bump into an article that needs our help, I will be there when I have time! I mean, those poor, innocent articles, they deserve to exist on Wikipedia! I wish I was part of this eversince I joined Wikipedia. All that should be deleted are articles that view nonsense, and accidental creations! Articles that view very little info should be expanded, not deleted! Very small articles/stubs should just be expanded enough to stay on Wikipedia for all eternity!Kitty53 (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Jahnx (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. BenA (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Cel Talk to me 04:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC) This is pretty much what I do now.[reply]
  93. maestrosync talk — 01:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. SilkTork *YES! 10:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC) I'm in. I have been doing this already, so it's good to know there's a collective to share ideas and alert each other to articles that need attention.[reply]
  95. Diodesign (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Kingturtle (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Protonk (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Macduffman (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Jim Miller I didn't even know there was a project for something I've been doing anyway. With that nifty life preserver logo, what else can I do but jump right into the pool! Jim Miller (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. John Z (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. My Account (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Vickser (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. I had never heard about this before the current MfD, and had been doing this solo for years. What can I do to help. Alansohn (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. I seem to be doing this already ... BMW(drive) 12:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Ooops, forgot to sign up myself! Banjeboi 23:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Is there a club for people who forget to log in, too? Forridean 03:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. It all began when one of my own articles, Bananagrams, was nominated for deletion about 8 minutes after I created it. I knew it had merit, so I saved it and made this userbox. Then I happened upon an article with a rescue tag -- I was wondering if there was something like this? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 18:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Abusing (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I'm glad to be a part of the ARS[reply]
  110. RoryReloaded (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Jethro Thompson J. Thompson (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Fed up with the Speedy Deletion nutters trying to delete pages I've only started minutes earlier WorthyDan (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. --A NobodyMy talk 03:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. --otherlleft (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC) I still don't know if I'm a deletionist, inclusionist, or just plain Wikipedian, but this project makes sense.[reply]
  115. DiverScout (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Banime (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. MathCool10 02:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Iamthejustice (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Member notes

The following comment was added in relation to Member #35:

That's a great idea. Wikia already runs a wiki for this purpose, but there needs to be a related organization on Wikipedia that isn't associated with a particular company. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 01:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members&oldid=255805196"