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
PauperHell (talk | contribs)
139 edits
Line 370: Line 370:
#[[User:Picapica|Picapica]] ([[User talk:Picapica|talk]]) 16:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
#[[User:Picapica|Picapica]] ([[User talk:Picapica|talk]]) 16:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
#[[User:Sreed888|Jojalozzo]] ([[User talk:Sreed888|talk]]) 19:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
#[[User:Sreed888|Jojalozzo]] ([[User talk:Sreed888|talk]]) 19:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
#[[User:PauperHell|PauperHell]] ([[User talk:PauperHell|talk]]) 22:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
<!--- PLEASE ADD YOUR NAME ABOVE THIS LINE --->
<!--- PLEASE ADD YOUR NAME ABOVE THIS LINE --->
:''Note: <nowiki>{{subst:ARS Welcome}}</nowiki> done through User:Enric Naval.''
:''Note: <nowiki>{{subst:ARS Welcome}}</nowiki> done through User:Enric Naval.''

Revision as of 22:22, 10 February 2010

 Main page Article rescue list Articles & content News Awards Members Talk Page 
Shortcut

Code of conduct

  • The Article Rescue Squadron is not about casting !votes (and therefore not about vote-stacking). It is a non-partisan Wikiproject to improve the encyclopedia. If you work on an article that has been tagged for rescue, try to add references and edit the content to address concerns raised in the AfD discussion rather than just "vote and scoot."
  • Show the light. If you comment in an AfD discussion, try to describe which of the problems raised in the nomination you have fixed, and note 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, you may place a comment in the AfD as a courtesy. This will help the closing admin determine which version of the article the editors in the AfD were commenting on. Try to lead by example, through improving articles and making comments based on the deletion policy.

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

All Members

  1. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 18:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. User:I.am.lost formerly 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. DickClarkMises 20:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Wl219 21:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 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]
  16. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 05:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Zidel333 AfD breaks my heart. So, I'm happy to help as best I can. :) Please keep me posted of any new info.
  18. Recurring dreams (talk · contribs) Count me in.
  19. 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]
  20. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Thank heavens for something like this.[reply]
  21. 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]
  22. Violask81976 Most definitely.
  23. Gnangarra - notability is a corner stone of Wikipedia it cannot be ignored.
  24. Mathmo Talk, because I am a wild-eyed inclusionist. ;)
  25. Secret formerly Jaranda wat's sup 20:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC) - Only when it's certain sports articles[reply]
  26. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 16:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC) - Somehow I seem to find a lot of Citations for Shopping Centres.[reply]
  27. Zanimum 17:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Presuming the rescued articles remain truly worth rescuing.[reply]
  28. SimonP 17:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. 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]
  30. 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]
  31. 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]
  32. 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]
  33. 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]
  34. Dsmdgold I am especially interested in the misuse of the criteria for speedy deletion. Dsmdgold 12:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. xDanielxTalk 22:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. AndyJones. Count me in. 12:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. User:Dreftymac. dr.ef.tymac 16:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. 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]
  39. Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 16:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Kevin Murray 20:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Fosnez 20:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC) - Sign me up![reply]
  42. Ichormosquito I feel at home. Thanks, Fosnez! Article creation should always be encouraged. 05:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Ronabop Brilliant! 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  44. 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]
  45. Borgardetalk 08:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. 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.
  47. Phgao 17:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. 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]
  49. 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]
  50. 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]
  51. Victor falk I like that "Sofixit Spirit" stuff. --Victor falk 14:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. 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]
  53. SarekOfVulcan 20:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC) - I'm in: I love fixing articles.[reply]
  54. 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]
  55. Chubbles I am ace at determining the notability of musicians and musical ensembles. I'm happy to be contacted about any problem cases.
  56. 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.
  57. Borisu - Wikipedia is too important to let the average mob rule it.
  58. Carcharoth 00:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. 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.
  60. Andrewa Looks a very worthwhile addition to Wikiculture. See User:Andrewa/creed.
  61. Sasawatcan talk and Edit 20:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. rkmlai (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Superlex (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC) - It's great to see people working to improve articles. Noble cause.[reply]
  64. Harland1 (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. 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]
  66. 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]
  67. 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]
  68. 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]
  69. EdDownUnder (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. 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]
  71. @pple complain 16:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Wageless (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC) I want to be a part of this.[reply]
  73. Explodicle (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Ursasapien (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. 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]
  76. MASEM 14:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. 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]
  78. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Paularblaster (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Bilby (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Tinucherian (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Hazillow (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Skeletor 0 (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC) To arms![reply]
  85. 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]
  86. Jahnx (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. BenA (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Cel Talk to me 04:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC) This is pretty much what I do now.[reply]
  89. maestrosync talk — 01:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. 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]
  91. Diodesign (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Kingturtle (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Macduffman (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. 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]
  96. John Z (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Vickser (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. 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]
  99. I seem to be doing this already ... BMW(drive) 12:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Ooops, forgot to sign up myself! Banjeboi 23:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Is there a club for people who forget to log in, too? Forridean 03:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. 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]
  103. RoryReloaded (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Jethro Thompson J. Thompson (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. 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]
  106. --A NobodyMy talk 03:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. --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]
  108. DiverScout (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Iamthejustice (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. NoVomit (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC) I'd much rather fix the damn pipe than stand around complaining about having wet feet.[reply]
  112. PedroMcA 2033, 10 January 2009
  113. Chamal talk 13:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Wikiven (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2009
  115. --Buster7 (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)This ain't no party...This ain't no disco...This ain't no foolin' aroun'[reply]
  116. SMSpivey (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC) - yea, forgot to add my name here[reply]
  117.  Randall Bart   Talk  21:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  118. DanielZimmerman (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Angdl I seriously need to get my article rescued.
  120. JT72 Count me in too!
  121. MuffledThud thanks for recent help
  122. CortalUXTalk? 12:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC) - I'll help where I can.[reply]
  123. Wiseleo (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Can't...stop...undeleting (it's in the blood)[reply]
  124. Iswearius (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Smallman12q (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Hardcore inclusionist all the way![reply]
  126. EagleFan (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  127. D4g0thur 08:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  128. BRG (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC) This is a great idea and I agree with just about everything that has been said above. Of course, please count me in![reply]
  129. Unionhawk (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Count me in![reply]
  130. — Ched (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Just call me the patron saint of lost causes.[reply]
  131. Marhawkman (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Sure, deletionists annoy me.[reply]
  132. Shunpiker (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Hurrah for redemption![reply]
  133. ALLOCKE|talk 23:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC) I'm in[reply]
  134. Dromioofephesus (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Mark Hurd (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  136. --Jmbranum (talk) 06:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  137. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Thanks for inviting me, glad to be here. I hate it when people nominiate pages I made for AFD.[reply]
  138. Nick carson (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Lumos3 (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Many AFDs I have encountered are ways of pushing a POV agenda.[reply]
  140. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 12:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Smartcom5 (Talk ?) Glad to see someone who is also dedicated ! -User too ! Lock'n load guys. :-)
  142. User:Sioraf
  143. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) - AfD is probably one of the most significant sources of new article ideas for me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Keresaspa (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Ikip (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC) I forgot to sign up myself :) What I love about the Rescue squardon is the indirect results: we help the wikipedia project retain new editors (who are the unintended victims of the vast majority of AfDs) by letting new editors know that their contributions are meaningful and valuable.[reply]
  146. User:Baronnet 17:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Ratzer (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC) I hope to help with geographical articles pending deletion[reply]
  148. SUFC boy I'm tired of seeing a massive deletion list, and a wiki that doesn't accept new entries
  149. dil (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Innocent until proven guilty - let those who would delete articles justify it.[reply]
  150. T L Miles (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Per user "MQSchmidt" (120, above). Know something of West African History, and France and UK 19th century history, some football (soccer) and leftist stuff.[reply]
  151. --Leifern (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Eclectic interests, sporadic participation, but a particular emphasis on Norwegian history.[reply]
  152. Squamate (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Tired of people who seem to live for deletion.[reply]
  153. Already set the userbox to my userpage. Netrat (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  154. betsythedevine (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Sandman30s (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC) I stopped adding new articles when my video game articles were deleted. To hell with notability. What about 'the sum of all knowledge of mankind' in the founder's words?[reply]
  156. Tvoz/talk 20:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC) As usual, DGG has it right - delete if it's hopeless, but fix if there's any hope. WE ARE NOT PAPER. Tvoz/talk 20:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Shanoman (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Skyler13 (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)--Skyler :^|[reply]
  159. I've become very concerned with the actions of some users who simply delete content that can easily be improved. Teeninvestor (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Sultan-Commander (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Please include me. Will be happy to help.[reply]
  161. Machete97 (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Inclusionist, would like to help against rampant deletion of notable topics.[reply]
  162. -- Tony G 15:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Doing what I can when I can (and the best way to reach me is by e-mail)[reply]
  163. [[::User:Speeda psx|Speeda psx]] ([[::User talk:Speeda psx|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Speeda psx|contribs]]) 15:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Some guys deleted some of my hard work that had time to improve.Inclusionist giving help to you guys!
  164. ShoesssS Talk 17:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC) The topic says all that needs to be said.[reply]
  165. — User:Reinyday, 17:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Magnetic Rag (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC) --Don't have lots of time, but will contribute when I can.[reply]
  167. Sabine McNeill (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Stereorock I do not like deletion!Stereorock (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  169. User:musically_ut is rolling up his sleeves. musically_ut (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Jheiv (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  171. avs_dps I am totally into it! (talk)
  172. Noble Skuld the Legend Killer (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC) I'd love to contribute.[reply]
  173. Dream Focus 18:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC) When reason fails, societies break apart, and civilization crumbles around them. We must strive to stop the insanity here and now, not just to put out the fires others keep starting, but to rebuild what they have destroyed, restoring what was lost to us, so that the wikipedia can once again be what it was meant to be. Wiki means "casual", it an encyclopedia where anyone can edit, and add to as they see fit, without fear of overjudgmental people picking apart every little thing they do, and trying to erase it if it isn't just perfect by their standards.[reply]
  174. Ks64q2 (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC) I'm happy to help out.[reply]
  175. Strummer25 (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC) I'm glad to join.[reply]
  176. roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Deleted Content is lost content. The destruction of world libraries, archives and encyclopedias are the primary cause for the losses in knowledge for mankind.[reply]
  177. Incognito1980 --Incognito1980 18:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Christopher (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC) - believe this is A Good Idea on the whole, and support its aims.[reply]
  180. Ottre 22:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Jwray (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  182. JNF Tveit (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  183. OlYellerTalktome 20:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  184. User:shanem201 --Shanem201 (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  185. --Agari (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC) - thanks for the invite, this is indeed going to be a good and useful project.[reply]
  186. Ford MF (talk) 03:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC) E-mail me if you need me.[reply]
  187. jjska®ate 空手|道® 08:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Delete, delete and delete. No mercy to many beginners or to some articles that needs help. Delete.[reply]
  188. Dean B (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Libertyguy--Libertyguy (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Yogi de (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Radiopathy (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Skitzo (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I will probably be most use of English football related articles but I'll lend a hand with most articles.[reply]
  193. A20anna One of the things I think that can be improved is when a new person like me joined, I was immediately accused of something called sockpuppet. I was very hurt by that, and the funny thing was I did not even know what it was! They just posted this huge horrible sign on my talk page. I joined because of a few issues on page. So I will be a big defender of the Rescue Squad and its efforts. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  194. dbabbitt (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC) might help.[reply]
  195. Trey (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC) A noble cause i'll help where i can.[reply]
  196. Louisprandtl (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC) I just fell into this thing naturally by starting a rescue before I knew the Squadron existed. Now that I found it, count me in too. ;][reply]
  198. 59.95.*.* (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 18:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Count me in[reply]
  200. Makitomoda (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Cynthia Shubert (unregistered) 22:39, 23 March 2009 (PDT) A noble cause; I'll help where i can.
  202. Neon5162 (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC) one of my articles was deleted for supoosidly advertiseing a gov program all i was doing was typing in what it offerd what was thier how many people it could hold stuff like that. Then thiers the fact that i hated the place and wouldnt let my worst enemy go there if i could help it.[reply]
  203. AshleyMiller (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Be Bold In Edits (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC) I'm a bit brash but hopefully I can help.[reply]
  205. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 07:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Quistisffviii (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I believe people should be checking for vandalism, not locating an article to delete. I also believe that notability is in the eye of the beholder.[reply]
  207. Havok (T/C/e/c) 16:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  208. -Marcusmax(speak) 17:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  209. BenRussell (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  210. MaverickSolutions (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC) - We're happy to help on any technology-related articles.[reply]
  211. PEPSI2786talk 05:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  212. - BMcCJ (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  213. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC) A most worthy project![reply]
  214. Granite thump (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Cartman005 (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Canadian (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  217. the wub "?!" 23:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Legoland12342 (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC) I was originally planning on joining the ARS about two or three months ago, but after reading about the lawsuit that's come about because of Wikipedia Art, I decided it was time to get off my duff and do something.[reply]
  219. Moritheil (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Waste not, want not.[reply]
  220. Verdatum (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Porterjoh (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC) This interests me. Can't wait to get started.[reply]
  222. Veraladeramanera T C Hi, I want to join ARS because I want to rescue articles on Wikipedia that have been AfD nominated because they lack "Encyclopedic info". That is not a good reason to Nominate them for deletion, no matter how little info they have! The only time an AfD nomination is really legitimate in my opinion is when they lack encyclopedic topics!
  223. Gigs (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC) I lean toward deleting a little more than I lean toward keeping, but I'm also not one to pass up a diamond in the rough.[reply]
  224. Verbal chat 08:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC) If it's worth keeping then keep, but sometimes a fresh start is better. I do not support canvassing, and hope this group moves away from it.[reply]
  225. Junius49 (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  226. +A.Ou 03:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC) - Let no efforts be wasted.[reply]
  227. Mr. Prez formerly Baileyf07 (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Tycoon24 (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Helping Wikipedia keep noteworthy encyclopedic information from deletion. The more I learn, the better at it I'll become.[reply]
  230. Rothorpe (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  231. Licit Ivy (talk) Save the dying articles! I also take requests. 08:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  232. MickMacNee (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  233. Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Subjective notability arguments for deletion are driving me crazy.[reply]
  234. Thhhh (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  235. Marcus2 (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  236. JordanITP (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  237. Panyé El Skat-é-board-ér King-o (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  238. Esowteric (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Sometimes need to work like crazy to get a new article sorted before it's jumped on.[reply]
  239. Ben Kenobi151 (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  240. Hangakiran 01:18 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  241. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 09:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC) CSD patrol mostly. Forwarding or saving article's that do not really need to be removed, just rewritten or cleaned.[reply]
  242. Novinha (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  243. User:Veronika_Stolbikova formerly VeronikaS (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  244. Bubbles02 (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Thought I'd join, although I have very little practice at this. But, I suppose I'll learn as I go along[reply]
  245. Sweetness46 (talk) 05:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  246. Scouto2 (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC) I'll join to keep articles from falling into a state of disrepair.[reply]
  247. Baller449 (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  248. Rak-Tai Rak-Tai (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  249. -- Daniel Jones (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC) - pleased to be of service[reply]
  250. Bradybd (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  251. BusterD (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  252. Nappyrootslistener (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  253. Bleaney (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  254. DragonFly31 (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  255. Shirishag75 (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  256. Germanname1990 (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC) I have always been passionate about helping others for good causes, no matter how significant these causes are. This is another cause I am eager to help out on. Even if there are topics that I have no knowledge of, I'll do what I can to fix them.[reply]
  257. What about a squirrel? (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC) In the name of Chipmunk accuracy![reply]
  258. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC) - I may believe in deleting the bad, but please, let's save the good![reply]
  259. ThaddeusB (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Guess I should probably make this official now. :) In addition to being an editor who tries to save articles, I am also an admin & bot operator. As such, I am willing to help out in admin/BOT areas when the need arises (time permitting of course). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  260. Theleftorium (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  261. Cerejota (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Had the box since forever... but got welcomed so now I sign...[reply]
  262. MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) – I check in when I have the time to.
  263. AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC) - I added the userbox to my page a while ago but didn't notice this list until I was invited to sign. I consider myself a member and now I'm on the list.[reply]
  264. WikiWebbie (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC) I wish I'd known about this before![reply]
  265. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) I can't very well ask others to save my articles, if I don't save theirs!
  266. Timeshifter (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  267. Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC) The deletionists are not evil people they just get a little carried away sometimes. Someone needs to provide a balance to prevent Wikipedia from being deleted off the face of the earth. "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." By Burke, Edmund in his "Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents and the Two Speeches on America." [ Published 1770. Sixth Edition, Dodsley, 1784.][reply]
  268. Pohick2 (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  269. Animeronin (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Glad to be of service to the community. :)[reply]
  270. Pedro J. the rookie 22:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  271. Linuxlove8088 (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Yeah sounds good[reply]
  272. superstooge (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2009
  273. Francium12 I loathe deletionism!  Francium12  18:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  274. --AStanhope (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  275. Cyclopia (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC) -- I'll do what I can.[reply]
  276. Milowent --Milowent (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Defending The History of Earth! :-)[reply]
  277. 2fort5r 2fort5r (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  278. Scythre --ScythreTalkContribs 19:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  279. Artemis84 (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC) "War is a continuation of politics - by other means." --von Klausewitz; "Every battle is won before it's ever fought." --Sun Tzu, the Art of War, quoted by Michael Douglas in Wall Street[reply]
  280. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 09:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC) — I really hate deletions, so count me in![reply]
  281. modelmotion--Modelmotion (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  282. Jokestress (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC) I cannot abide deletionism, especially its most virulent form, speedy deletion.[reply]
  283. Rhonan (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC) What use is cheap storage when people want to delete content?[reply]
  284. Javért  |  Talk 04:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Looking for a new challenge. :)[reply]
  285. Greg987 (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  286. Mathieas (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  287. Kuralyov (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  288. SunCreator (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  289. ϢereSpielChequers 00:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC) I may have deleted 2,491 pages, but I do belong here honest.[reply]
  290. Mr. Brain (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Definitely interested in having some of my articles retrieved.[reply]
  291. Michig (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC). All encyclopedic topics should have articles here. If they can be saved they should be.[reply]
  292. Metty (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Seems everyone that I admire the most for their comments in AfD is a member of this group. Looks like the place to be. (:[reply]
  293. Mokhov (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC) - alright, a place I belong.[reply]
  294. User:Novickas. Have felt good about various rescues. Novickas (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  295. Mandsford (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Count me in. I think all information can be saved somewhere, even if not all individual articles can be rescued.[reply]
  296. User:Eldumpo Thanks for the invite. Eldumpo (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  297. User:Hotspot I'm in, you don't know how many of my images have been removed. Without images things can be harder to understand and then you have to go on a search engine and find an image yourself which can be hard for something that isn't popular like a video game or a show.(Hotspot) 12:06 PM September 20? 21? 2009 (UTC)
  298. User:Warrior4321. Thanks for the invite. I'd be glad to join. warrior4321 19:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  299. Airplaneman talk 22:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC) I think it's time I'd join. When patrolling new pages, I often spruce up articles to make sure they don't get deleted and am happy to join the team :).[reply]
  300. Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC) I am one that believes a lot of articles get delted just because of poor work, something is new so notabitly is hard ot prove but not necessarily not htere, and that there is a lot of editors out there that do not care about the topic or do not research it more[reply]
  301. DustFormsWords (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  302. Neuromancer (talk) 5 November 2009.
  303. Netmouse (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC) I think deletion is one of the processes most relevant to questions facing the Strategic Task Force on increasing reader contributions. I invite everyone here to join us in considering these questions.[reply]
  304. --T1980 (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC) count me in![reply]
  305. Tyranny Sue (talk) I'll have a go :) --Tyranny Sue (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  306. J04n(talk page) 09:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  307. Victor Silveira (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  308. Ghym (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  309. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  310. KeptSouth (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  311.  Gongshow Talk 06:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC) I'm happy to help where I can.[reply]
  312. Thanks for the invitation! --PinkBull 18:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  313. Scieberking (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC) I'm more than willing to help.[reply]
  314. bjfs discuss 13:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Amputation is a last resort, this cannot be a common practise in quality assurance.[reply]
  315. Svartulfr118:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  316. NBeale (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC) This is a great idea - I wish I had known about it before.[reply]
  317. Bigmantonyd (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Quality only grows with time, predatory deletion is counterproductive[reply]
  318. -- Jordan "Eck" Samuel (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  319. User:Lauraserbu 13:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  320. Everyking (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I suppose I should at least show moral support.[reply]
  321. Anikin3 Help!!! Messages? 12:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I will try my best to help.[reply]
  322. --Sotonfc4life (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Encyclopedias are supposed to be the font of knowledge, the internet is supposed to share that knowledge, and Wikipedia should be integral to that. Deleting articles like hungry sharks eating fish is counter productive to those aims.[reply]
  323. I don't have the time to try to help rescue every article for which I !vote keep, but I try when I can. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  324. Nemogbr (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I would prefer an article to be improved rather than deleted. It is counterproductive to simply delete.[reply]
  325. Belugaboy535136 talk 01:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  326. Enric Naval (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC) The good work saving PRODded unsourced BLPs has convinced me to join.[reply]
  327. Picapica (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  328. Jojalozzo (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  329. PauperHell (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: {{subst:ARS Welcome}} done through User:Enric Naval.

Members with the ARS category

Interested in the newsletter but not in joining ARS.

Members who do not want the newsletter

  • Tvoz/talk 20:32, 24 February 2009.

Member notes

The following comment was added in relation to Member #34:

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]

When they were deleting 90% of the Voltron page, I created a wikia for it, and copied all the information over from when the article was at its longest. Copied all the deleted information from the Gantz article as well over to an existing but previously mostly empty wikia. But you can only create a new wikia once every so many days of your last one created, thus limiting how many articles you can save by that method. So this works out quite well. There no limit to how many pages to pile up there, so hordes of articles can be copied to it. If we could just copy the entire wikipedia over to the wikia, then we wouldn't need the wikipedia anymore at all. It'd be the same thing, only with more reasonable rules. Anyone got a tool for that, or know where to ask for one? Dream Focus 18:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize you just proposed forking Wikipedia, right? Furthermore, Wikipedia already maintains a full diff history, you can link to the desired versions of the pages, why would you copy the data? This would probably work best as a collaborative browser add-on or something. Regardless, that's counterproductive to the goal of this group, improving the current quality of AfD, so that they are not deleted. -Bigmantonyd (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A caution

We are here to attempt rescuing articles that have been sent to AfD that may be improved to meet wiki standards and so thus improve the project as a whole. Editors should leave "politics" at the door before entering. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members&oldid=343233760"