Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron

Welcome to the talkpage of the Article Rescue Squadron. If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article, please follow these instructions.

Welcome to the talkpage of the Article Rescue Squadron. If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article, please follow these instructions.

Article Rescue Squadron keeps getting slandered

• A recent RFC about an active member of the ARS, has caused a lot of people to go there just to bash the ARS itself, both on the RFC page itself Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden and its talk page. People seem to be attacking the ARS more than the particular editor. The nominating editor is also drafting a proposal to dramatically limit the ARS User:Snottywong/ARS proposal. Seems like something that the ARS members might want to be involved in. Dream Focus 22:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Dream Focus, this has nothing to do with the core work of the ARS, which is (in case it had slipped your mind) improving articles which are nominated for deletion. Your posting here is akin to adding a {{rescue}} tag to the RFC itself, solely in order increase the chances of more people who agree with you turning up there. pablo 22:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It has everything to do with the ARS since that is the only reason some of them are going after one of its active members, as evident by their comments. Dream Focus 22:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Which articles are you hoping to "save" by posting these allegations here exactly? pablo 22:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say a fair number of us are following CW's tar-and-feathering, and its fair to place a note here noting that ARS-slagging there is in full force like a baptist preacher at a tent revival talking about methodists. That being said, I agree with pablo that the RfC is not about the ARS, so I've chosen to ignore that and I encourage others to do the same. I've only skimmed Snotty's proposal, but most of the ideas seem quite bureaucratic and absolutely unworkable, but I'll comment on the talk page of the draft if I decide to explain in detail. Some vocal editors have complained about the ARS since its inception, despite positive coverage in the media, its all the same rehash.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the same rehash; it's the same issues, Milo; always has been. The thing is that they are pretty much all editor issues rather than project issues. pablo 23:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not a psychologist, but what's that phenomenon that causes people to blame groups instead of individuals, because it's easier to do so. Anyone know? So instead of someone saying the Colonel or Dream or me or whoever are their problem, they say "THE ARS". If there was a formal deletionist squad, perhaps we'd do the same thing. I can get irritated at The Wordsmith for his recent spate for AfDs noms which had a number of bad noms, but I'm not inclined to just slag the kid as if he's not a human being but some evil force.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know offhand, but part of the reason in this case, and one of the valid project issues, was the worry that the ARS would act as a (and I am quoting from memory) "general inclusionist noticeboard". That was not unfounded given Ikip's attempt to merge various projects (and worse, their 'membership') into here, and that same issue is evident with Dream Focus' post above. pablo 23:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC) just for the record Heh … seems I was quoting myself^diff and the quotation I was looking for was "general-purpose deletion noticeboard" pablo 00:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. If all people used the ARS for was to increase sourcing, there would be no issue. By picking AfDs carefully, getting good sources, engaging collegialy with those who disagree, and not contesting existing consensus on inclusion standards, I rescue articles consistently. Occasionally, people still try to tar me (despite my vocal rejection of "ARS membership") with that brush, but then I trot out an article or two that I've rescued and substantially improved and the objections seem to dry up. Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I would also suggest that the best way to improve the reputation of ARS in the general community is to rise above the petty arguments and just do the work. The vast majority of WP editors are neither deletionists nor inclusionists. Being at either end of that spectrum is fine, and I think, having the extremes helps, so long as we remain civil. But if you are an extreme inclusionist, attacking deletionists, your arguments will be dismissed by the vast majority of editors. I would point to Uncle G as an good example we should follow. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with pablo's comment that there isn't a problem with the way ARS is set up, but there is a problem with some (or perhaps many) of the editors who are members. The aforementioned proposal that I threw together was a collection of thoughts I'd had (some of which were inspired by ideas that Jclemens had expressed previously) for ways to reform the ARS such that the editors who give it a bad name would no longer be able to do so. This is likely why Dream would immediately view it as "limiting", because it closes all the loopholes that are frequently abused to push along the radical inclusionist battle plan (like legal canvassing, votestacking, etc). I don't have any delusions that my proposal will be taken seriously by very many ARS members, but I think it is a useful starting point for a discussion on how to fix the obvious problems with this organization, as perceived by the Wikipedia community in general. And you can't deny that there is a strong perception that this organization suffers from some major problems. SnottyWong ^spout 23:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Vote stacking and canvassing? Indeed. If the article isn't improved, then the number of people turning out isn't relevant. And many people such as yourself actively participate in articles tagged, and almost always say delete. So tagging something for rescue isn't just attracting people who vote one way or another. Your mention of a "radical inclusionist battle plan" is absolutely absurd. Dream Focus 02:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I leave my name here as a member because I still feel that the work of rescuing articles is valid. I don't usually bother to tag articles anymore, and instead just go ahead and work on the articles I find at AfD that I believe I can rescue. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. I also check the ARS category regularly, but often find things there I am not willing to spend my time on. I read the comments of those who say the ARS is just a vote-stacking mechanism, but just like in every previous MfD, there has never been any proof of this. I don't comment on a tagged AfD unless I have added something to the article, the work has already been done by someone else, or there is a glaring violation of WP:BEFORE. If another MfD is started, or an actual proposal is made at VP, I will certainly comment, but there are probaly a lot of other editors like me who don't get into the drama of it all, and just like to rescue articles. I won't waste any of my time on a proposal until it leaves user space and is actually put before the community. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 00:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair play Jim (and JClemens, and Uncle G, and many others). There are "article rescuers" and there are people who identify as "members" of ARS– and they are not necessarily the same thing. pablo 00:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you implying that since I consider myself a member of the ARS, i'm one of the bad guys? :P Silverseren^C 00:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hellz noe. I suppose you could break down "There are "article rescuers" and there are people who identify as "members" of ARS– and they are not necessarily the same thing" as "article rescuing" does necessarily require membership of the ARS, and membership of the ARS does not necessarily mean that one is an "article rescuer". pablo 00:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am a member of the ARS but not (so far) an article rescuer. In my case this is because I mostly focus my work on Wikipedia on a narrow range of topics involving electronics engineering, and I am looking for articles in that narrow area that I can rescue. Guy Macon 21:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

FedEx Express Flight 647

FedEx Express Flight 647 is currently at AFD. Is this one worthy of rescue? Sources available include Aviation Safety Network and the NTSB report of the investigation into the accident. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

*takes out reference gun* RAT-A-TAT-TAT! *blows smoke from the barrel* Silverseren^C 09:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've never gotten into the air crash AfDs in any detail, i don't really understand why people get so crazed about ones that have sourcing. Do ones like this all need separate articles or would they be more useful if combined into an article like Aircraft incidents of 2003? I have no idea.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ARSB

Template:ARSB has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

It looks like these are not in use, but thought you might want to know. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants a copy of it, or for me to move it to a subpage of this project, just let me know. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Article Creation Squadron?

Now, I know it doesn't fall under our purview, but I just wanted to make a suggestion about some articles that should be created. If you guys don't want to do it, then I can just take it over to WP:RA. Anyways, an hour or so ago, I somehow found myself browsing through Wikipedia Review's forum. Don't ask me how it happened, it just did (At first I thought I was on 4chan, but with better spelling and sentence structure).

While browsing through there, I came across this thread. And I thought it would be pretty amusing if someone went about and created all of the articles (at least the actual notable ones) that they mentioned on there. I have no idea if that would mean we are supporting or opposing Wikipedia Review, but I still think it would be funny as hell. A couple of the subjects they mentioned do have articles, so make sure you check for that.

If you guys feel up to it, I think it would be a lot of fun. Oh, and I call Gottlob Espenlaub. He's mine. >:3 Silverseren^C 06:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Is everyone ignoring me? :( Silverseren^C 21:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to involve lots of extra work for people to again discuss articles which already have been nominated for deletion and a decision has been made to delete the article. Ulner (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

...wha? What are you talking about? As far as I know, none of these articles have been made before. Gottlob Espenlaub hasn't, at least. What do you mean? Silverseren^C 21:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Its just Wikipedia Review have been known to attack legendary editors such as ANobody and Benji. Im not sure they deserve any of our attention. Gottlob Espenlaub has a cool sounding name though, will look out for when you create the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care all that much about WR. It's just the fact that their complaining is highly useful to making articles. I would have never ended up fixing up the article on Hogg (novel) if they hadn't made a thread complaining about it. And don't they attack pretty much everyone anyways? Essentially, anyone who is semi-important or known on WP gets attacked by them. I found the instances where I was mentioned on WR to be highly amusing. Tarc has to try much harder if he wants to insult me. :P Silverseren^C 22:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• WR is an interesting place, many there are negative about wikipedia but they are also very bright. I have created a few articles before that posters there were "shocked" didn't exist.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks to their complaining, i've written Gottlob Espenlaub, Charles Coolidge Parlin, National Analysts, William Caskey Swaim, William Jordan (actor), and Murder of Carlos Castro. Silverseren^C 21:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Seems like a pointy way of deciding which articles to write. Almost like you're writing articles out of spite, or to "teach them a lesson". That may not be your intention, but that's how it comes off. Just my 2¢. Interesting articles though. SnottyWong ^chatter 23:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Like i've said before, I don't care what they think or about WR in general. They just give me good article topics that I wouldn't have thought of otherwise. Silverseren^C 23:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Snotty, that's glass half empty way to view it. You have some of these disaffected academic phd types over there that do identify articles that should exist, like Tureng Tepe (to pick one i saw suggested and subsequently created). They don't need to be taught a lesson, they've just tired of the project (or been banned from it for whatever drama of years ago).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems: a trove of articles waiting to be rescued

I'm not sure to what extent ARS members are aware of the large source of rescuable articles that get listed at WP:CP. These articles get listed because they contain copyright violations, and if no-one deals with them after 7 days, they usually get deleted or stubbified. Often they're about quite notable subjects: for example, today I blanked the very notable Insurgency in Ogaden. We also have the notable Australia – United Arab Emirates relations, Jackie Fields and History of Nicosia fast heading towards redlink territory.

Rescuing these articles would (a) help save worthy articles from deletion; and (b) help address copyright violations. (Sorry for the cheeky attention-grabbing edit summary) --Mkativerata (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestions - I've snagged Jackie Fields and am fixing that one up now. I didn't actually see the edit summary, but now I'm curious! - ManicSpider (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Nice one - it's not often you find a world boxing champion on the scrapheap. By the way, if anyone wanted to nominate a complete copyvio rewrite at DYK, you'd certainly have my support. The DYK rules don't directly address whether you can nominate a copyvio rewrite, but in my view it would constitute a "new article". --Mkativerata (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how that works - I rewrote one the other day and people suggested I put it up for a DYK but I wasn't sure how to interpret the rules. In one sense, you have increased the article five-fold from nothing (deleting the CopyVio material) but another interpretation might be that you've written less than the original inelligble article (if you see what I mean). - ManicSpider (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  In my view, a complete rewrite of a copyvio is from scratch, so it shouldn't matter how long the copyvio was. If you can get any of them above 1500 characters of prose (the minimum for a new creation), I'd suggest giving it a go. Let me know if you need any help: the rules of DYK are labyrinthine and more of them are not in any way related to supporting the creation of good content.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for a Rescue-to-FA Bounty

I propose that the Article Rescue Squadron sponsor a competition for the Wikipedia:Bounty board. I am putting down $10 of my own money as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation in the name of the first editor, or group of editors who takes an article tagged with {{Rescue}} in 2011, and not only rescues it from AfD, but with six months of it's AfD closure elevates it to Featured Article status. I also challenge my fellow ARS members to make a matching donation.

The only criteria I would add is that it:

• Has to have been Nominated for Deletion on or after January 1, 2011. No fair resting on our already accomplished laurels.
• Has to have been tagged for {{Rescue}} during the debate and have been significantly improved between the time of Rescue tag and the close of the debate. Anything we would add to our Hall of Fame would qualify for the Bounty.
• Of those articles which are Bounty-qualified, the first article to reach Featured Article status would win.

I'd like to get some input from the Project before I go ahead and post the Bounty. Is there anything I should add/tweak/change? Do you guys agree with this? Or would this just add fuel to the haters' fires? -- RoninBK _{T C} 07:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea in general. I'm not sure what others would think about it. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with the idea in principle and would stump up some $$ to see it done (frankly, I think my $$ is safe!). Just a couple of caveats: ARS members would have to recuse themselves from any FAC discussion, and the deletion nom would have to be genuine. One sticking point could be FAC: that's a venue under a lot of stress with not enough reviewers, so they may object to their forum being used for reward (even though the $$ is going to WMF).--Mkativerata (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It happens all the time at WP:BOUNTY, and as far as I am aware there isn't a whole lot of objection to the practice as long as the money is going to the Foundation, and not to individual editors. (An RFC on directly paying editors at WP:RFC/PAID resulted in a no consensus, even with Jimbo himself opposed to the idea.) I don't believe that it would be necessary to recuse ourselves in the FAC process though as long as ARS members keep their discussions germane to FA criteria. In fact the FAC would seem to require that the article's supporters participate in the discussion to address any concerns raised.

Tell me about your ARS experience

I think ARS is the most important thing on Wikipedia. Fixing articles that would otherwise be deleted is extremely important. I have found it to be very hard work but also rewarding in and of itself. It's also great when others appreciate my efforts. — BUT — The dicussions in AfD and having others actively working against my efforts is awful and I find it extremely tiring. I've only rescued a handful of articles, but the ones I did, took — on average — 10 hours of effort each. And it can all be undone with 30 seconds of effort on somebody else's part. That's a 1200 to 1 ratio.

I ended up taking a wikibreak for well over a month after having rescued just a few articles. And watching what other ARS members go through is very depressing. I haven't been doing any rescuing or voting in AfD's since I've been back.

I have been keeping tabs on things though. And I have noticed the ARS superstars and they keep plugging away and they don't seem to suffer from what I was going through. Or maybe they just don't show it. Either way it's very inspirational.

There are over 350 members in ARS but I only seem to see a couple dozen (the superstars) that are really active. I'm wondering if the rest happened to have the same trouble I have. I thank my lucky stars that the ARS superstars are here and helping out. I'm wondering how they cope with all the negative stuff or if everybody's ARS experience is different than mine. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

A userbox on your user page reads, "This user is a true Wikipedian and allows everyone in the universe to completely rewrite every edit he has written on Wikipedia." Presumably, being open to having your edits completely rewritten would include being open to having your edits deleted as well. Why does being a "true Wikipedian" cause you so much stress that you have to go on wikibreak? You may not be heeding this essay faithfully enough. Which AfD was so painful that it prompted the wikibreak? SnottyWong ^gab 15:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Jeebus.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand completely where you're coming from. There are over 70 articles nominated per day, give or take. So many seem to be poorly referenced, badly written, suffering from CopyVios - but the subjects are notable. You mentioned the maths - it's easy to feel despair when you're continuously playing Sisyphus pushing articles uphill. I explained ARS to my friend like being an Emergency Room doctor. You save who you can, and you just have to let the rest go. I left for a while because I felt people were more eager to do the easy delete than the hard-work fix and it made me a bit sad. But at the end of the day, people will come and go. Articles will be created, edited and deleted. All things change. I have helped to preserve Smound, which was an AfD for patent nonsense that turned out to be not-so-nonsensical, Virginia Whitehill who was nominated as a non-notable BLP who was one of the main movers of the reproductive rights movement in Texas. I think in the end you have to savor your moments of victory, and give in gracefully when the consensus falls against you. It's 3am, so this may not make sense. ^_^ - ManicSpider (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Afd's are almost always a gamble and gambling is inherently stressful. Especially when one's invested some time in finding and inserting sources. As far as stress, one needs a thick skin to participate in WP in general, that's not going to change anytime soon. I use a couple of stress-reduction strategies. One is to make only one keep post, but include as many links as possible at that time. Mentioning their publishers is good and only takes a few more moments. Then I rely on the superstars to notice and do followup argumentation if necessary - wimpy, but I tell myself, better that than burning out. I suppose their natural talents and life experiences have given them resiliency and debating skills and so it's sort of a division of labor. A dedicated researcher has a lot of value here, sometimes you have to dig thru umpteen pages of irrelevant or unreliable material. The superstars do freely pass out compliments to the researchers and that helps :) The other strategy is...scheduling rescue attempts...anticipating that you'll lose some, that any one may be stressful...balancing act. Novickas (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have found that the rescue tag is being used far less often than it did when I started. I also see that there are less articles that are tagged that are in areas in which I am interested. I still check the cat regularly to look for viable articles, but usually find better possibilities at AfD that I can source without tagging and getting others involved. And we seem to be in the midst of yet another cycle of unsubstantiated accusations of vote-stacking being tossed around directly accusing all 350 people on that member list. I generally don't stress over unsuccessful rescues as much as I do about the accusations and clear bad faith on the part of those who wish to paint the entire ARS with a broad brush, and ignore the fact that they are directly accusing every member when they make such statements. I think this is part of why I don't tag articles more often. It has the possibility of bringing the entire AfD under attack (as opposed to scrutiny) by its simple placement. Bad nominations are made every day, and it's usually easy to identify at least one article to quietly source and rescue without bringing it to the attention of those editors who mistakenly conflate notability with importance. I guess I have been a little more focused on rescue as a purpose rather than a process, because I see the process as being a drama magnet. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 17:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. Silverseren^C 19:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm also in agreement that a "squadron" (or really an organization of any kind) is unnecessary for the purposes of rescuing articles. Rescuing is an individual effort. While individual members of the organization may be involved in genuine rescue work, the organization itself exists only as a way for like-minded individuals to organize themselves and push their POV about how WP should be. This is the genesis of the drama. This provokes other editors (who may not share your ideology) to feel like they need to push back to counteract the efforts of "the other side". Thus, a battle is formed. If both non-members and members alike are in agreement that an organization is unnecessary for rescuing articles, then what are we waiting for? SnottyWong ^chat 19:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That was a really nice job at twisting what JimMiller said. I mean, amazing job really, since you practically reversed the entire intention. That requires real English skills.

The issue is not with the ARS, but with the editors that are accusing all of us at every turn. You are one of the chief members of that clique, actually. Yes, the ARS needs to work better and we need to fix some things internally, we've all acknowledged that fact. But that doesn't change the truth that, no matter what we change, no matter how perfect we are, there will always be a group of people that it will not satisfy and there will always be accusations against us. It is for that reason that article rescuing in tiring, having to argue constantly with users like yourself. Silverseren^C 20:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are fatigued from being forced to constantly argue with people like me. I wish there was something I could do to help, but I can't think of anything at the moment. I don't think that I twisted Jim Miller's words necessarily, I just expanded on his thoughts and took them to their logical conclusion. It's not even that I object to the ARS itself, since there are other useful wikiprojects out that are based on tasks which are purely individual efforts, and the projects help to make sure those tasks are getting done right (e.g. New page patrol and Copyeditors' guild). What I (and the vast majority of other editors who speak critically of the squadron) am mainly opposed to is the {{rescue}} template, and this is directly what Jim Miller was referring to above. Since we all agree that rescuing is an individual effort, what is the purpose of the {{rescue}} template other than to attract the attention of like-minded editors to an AfD? In practice, it tends to attract the attention of like-minded (read:inclusionist) editors as well as editors of other ideologies who feel the need to counteract the implicit canvassing brought about by the {{rescue}} template. Thus, an unnecessary WP:BATTLE is born at each and every rescue-tagged AfD. SnottyWong ^comment 20:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I firmly believe that when we as community have to delete an article, we as a community have failed. Deletion is merely a tactic and I wrote a metaphorical essay about that: Archimedes was deleted. Now I've also helped rescue a few articles and view ARS as a noble endeavor by devoted Wikipedian's to further all the strategic goals of WP and as a methodology to prevent and mitigate the need for and effects of deletion. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats a good essay, lets hope it doesnt prove prescient. I fear the Squad no longer has much chance of exerting strategic influence. Even the mighty Ikip was unable to achieve much in that regard. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Snotty say: "I wish there was something I could do to help, but I can't think of anything at the moment". (hmmm... idle thoughts...). The tag has a valid use though, seriously. When I find I can source an article myself, I rarely use it, I just do the work. But sometimes those articles are ones I have found tagged by someone else who didn't have the time to source it themselves. Some of us are frankly better at spotting the articles worth saving, which is a valuable part of the squad's job.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly right. - ManicSpider (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Youre not suffering alone Hydrox . 2010 was certainly an Annus horribilis for the Squad. Okip recently posted here about the emotional turmoil many veterans have suffered. The Foundation have a study showing a fearful pattern that seems to be shared by the different Wikipedias in all the various languages. They all start with rapid growth and inclusionist values but eventually an inflexion point is reached where deletionism becomes ascendant and from that point the rate of growth rapidly declines and never recovers. Not all languages have reached that point yet, but all seem to be on the same path. Personally, even though I agree about the Squads importance, ive resolved to be much less active in AfDs this year, not that I was ever a superstar. Folk with strongly held contrasting views never bothers me, and I don’t mind that some of our efforts will go to waste. But I cannot abide a traitor so I find it quite distressing when editors wed expect to have our backs join in the attacks on prominent squad members. Ive also had a revelation Id like to share, which is that for all their successes deletionists have their share of emotional pain. I used to think everyone saw the Squads work as obviously heroic and on the side of the angels, but in the eyes of some deletionists squad members can be bullies! From the SHOUTING and emotive edit summaries deletionists make in response to rescue efforts, it appears that some of them feel we are a threat to Wikpedias academic integrity. It doesnt seem worth causing them upset if weve got no long term chance of upholding our people and content friendly values. Ultimately, one of two things are going to happen to Wikipedia. As deletionists increasingly get their way and encounter less opposition, they may begin to have a change of heart. God works this way sometimes, winning through apparent weakness. In this scenario effective Jim Miller types who perform low key undramatic rescues may play an important role, but there will be no more heroes after the fashion of Anobody or Ikip. Alternatively, deletionists will just keep raising their standards and slam the door on new content, until our article count begins to fall. At this point its just a matter of time before Wikiepedia is replaced as the worlds no 1 reference source, and follows Citizendium by descending into an elite and irrelevant academic backwater. The replacement will hopefully have inclusionist values hardcoded into its founding pillars, to protect it from following the historical trajectory of the other Wikipedias. I can imagine a permanent arbcom staffed by legends such as Ikip, Anobody, Benji, Dream , Milowent, yourself, MSQ, RAN and the Colonel. Either way, we don’t know for many years and things are likely going to get worse before they get better. In the end, good will triumph over evil. It is inevitable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• If not for ARS, I doubt I would be active at all on wikipedia. One editor started a vendetta against a group of related articles around August 2009, and I found the ARS, and learned that notable subject articles were indeed getting deleted. I realized that anyone really can edit wikipedia, and make a difference. I also love obscure knowledge and wikipedia has more of that (99% of it "notable", in fact) than anywhere since the dawn of time. Sometimes I get extremely angry in AfD and my comments show it, I go on hunger strikes and call deletion sprees death marches and book burnings but I find this therapeutic. Especially when I win. Then I dance on the virtual graves of my opponents. But SERIOUSLY, even most of those who are deletion-minded can be got along with and do make valuable contributions to the project. You can't take it too seriously, even though saving articles is awesome stuff. Even Abraham Lincoln, in the darkest days of the American Civil War, would read lengthy excerpts of contemporary humorists to his horrified cabinet--lest he lose all hope. Don't lose hope.... I typed this earlier today see some intervening comments above are coming in, and our dear friend Snotty is among them (shiver!), which I'll look at now.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I believe deletion is necessary at times. When I research something and can't find any evidence of notability, I put in a 'Delete' vote - while, as I said above, there's a lot of notable neglected articles, there's also a lot of spam and cruft and general crap. On the other hand, I don't understand why you're being so antagonistic, Snottywong. In its present form, how is ARS really any different to the Unreferenced BLP Rescue group? It's simply a group of like minded individuals who just look at all articles up for deletion, not just unreferenced BLPs. As long as people are fixing and referencing articles, how does that hurt you or Wikipedia? But then, I get the feeling that there's a lot of old politics mixed in here that I don't quite understand. And to be honest, FeydHuxtable emotive language like calling people 'traitors' because they don't 'have our back' doesn't help - surely if Wikipedia isn't what we want it to be and is replaced, people will just move there when that happens? Honestly, there doesn't need to be a Battleground - let's just save the good articles when we see them. - ManicSpider (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC).

Youre right, 'traitors' probably isnt a helpful word, they arent I guess, just seems like that sometimes. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• When I'm on arbcom, we'll let you off easy for that. :-) --Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

*lol* Yay for being second against the wall when the revolution comes! - ManicSpider (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I love H2G2 references. Don't forget your towel. Thanks for the input everybody. It has been very helpful to find out about other people's ARS experiences. Best regards. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is my experience, such as it is, as a total newbie with the ARS. I am in complete agreement with the aims of the ARS, but am still a bit hesitant concerning whether I have the knowledge and experience to do a good job of rescuing an article if I do it alone. Because of this I have been watching the efforts of others here and hope to jump in by adding a reference here or rewriting a paragraph there until I gain more confidence. I would imagine that there are others here who have the same hesitation. Guy Macon 03:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not terribly active on Wikipedia at the moment; I mostly just watch my watchlist to make sure no vandalism happens there. This is a time thing more than anything. When I do want to give a bit of time to Wikipedia I find an AfD article that I think is not just notable, but is something that I can fix so that no reasonable person can argue otherwise, and I put in the work to make it a fully cited article. This is a lot of work which is why I do it so rarely; and sometimes my first assessment is wrong so it's a harder sell than I'd expected. But so far nothing I've put that much work into has been deleted; I may well be lucky, but it's let me keep my enthusiasm (tempered by my lack of time...) about the whole thing. --Zeborah (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• There are > 350 people on the ARS member list, an impressive number to be sure. But this means ... not much, other than at one time these people endorsed the stated aims of the project (improving articles which are nominated for deletion to address the concerns raised by the nominator, in case anyone had forgotten). Looking down that list I find inactive editors, editors with very low contribution counts, blocked vandals, banned sockpuppeteers etc (for example one has 16 edits, 6 of which are to article space; another has not edited since 2008; yet another is banned after years of creating (and "rescuing") self-promotional articles and using an army of sockpuppets to do so). There are many familiar names of active editors, but no more than a handful of editors who actually perform "article rescue". Conversely there are many missing names – editors who do routinely improve articles but choose (for whatever reason) not to add their names to the list.
  Feyd's wailing about rampant deletionism leading to a falling article count is, of course, bollocks. There are many articles still left to create. Obviously article creation goes through a quasi-exponential phase when you start an encyclopaedia with an article count of 0. But maintaining the content that we do have takes work and editor time too – look at the articles that are in one or more maintenance categories to get an idea of the level of work that is involved there. Anyone who can't find a {{rescue}}-tagged and rescuable article might want to improve one which isn't nominated for deletion yet, but may be nominated in the future. Deletion of some articles is inevitable, and AfD fills an important role. Without it there would be more articles like Neteraantmwmw, created back in the "sources, schmources" bad old days (or the good old days when anyone could create an article about anything they wanted, depending on your point of view).
   pablo 11:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I started patrolling AfD for articles to fix long before the ARS was even a gleam in User:Tlogmer's eye. I point to efforts such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women Fully Clothed and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitution in the Czech Republic, where in both cases the Notability had not yet been established in the article, but turned out to be clearly notable subjects. I joined ARS when it formed with the idea that we would be doing more of this.

I believe that Wikipedia is supposed to be the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, even if you're just a fan of whatever it is you're writing on. You should not have to be a initiated into the cabal to be able to have an article in Wikipedia. Time and time again, I have seen articles that have been nominated straight off of New Page Patrol, even seen articles CSD'ed out from under the creator's nose while they were still trying to figure out the site. This was back before we had the simple litmus test of the General Notability Guideline; back then the concept of "Notability" was used as a kludge to bash articles that the Deletionists didn't like, or for that matter didn't understand. Even though we have a more refined process nowadays, it's still not as user friendly as it needs to be to truly be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. And this is why Wikipedia needs groups like the ARS, so that newbie editors who suddenly and unexpectedly have their work up for nomination can turn to a group of Wikipedia experts that can help turn their embryonic article into a fully developed piece.

Now having said all of that, I am fully aware that there has been abuse in the past, just like how the Notability guideline has been abused in its early history. I do not condone !vote stacking or cavnassing, that is not (nor has ever been) what the Rescue tag was designed for. Confirmed WP:SOCKs and blocked users should be removed from our roster. I would not remove inactive members, (I myself tend to be a WikiOgre, only coming out of my cave in fits and starts.) We should do more and more to distance ourselves from behavior which is not in the true spirit of our mission. And we need to do more to portray ourselves as a positive force within the encyclopedia. Part of the reason for the decline in the project is that good editors who would save good articles are turned away by our bad public image. -- RoninBK _{T C} 15:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "You should not have to be a initiated into the cabal to be able to have an article in Wikipedia" (assuming that by 'have an article' you mean 'write an article' rather than 'have an article written about you'). By the same token, you don't need to join the ARS to improve ('rescue' if you prefer) articles which are in danger of deletion.
Mike Cline's statement that 'if we ... have to delete an article, then we ... have failed' overstates things; if nothing were ever deleted, Wikipedia would resemble the internet as a whole; a repository for random thoughts, pr0nz, hoaxes, lies, opinions, with a few facts tucked away here and there.

See also

• User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing
• When Nothing Is Better Than Something

 pablo 21:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You assume correctly about "have an article," I'm not talking about someone trying to put an article up about themselves. And I don't disagree with you about having to join this WikiProject, or any WikiProject for that matter. I would differ with you on your "if nothing were deleted" point though, I think you are overstating things just as much. I believe that if half the amount of effort that people put into deletion were put into improving those articles to encyclopedic standards, I believe that Wikipedia would truly be the sum of human knowledge... with a few lies, opinions and hoaxes here and there. (Oh and by the way, hoaxes can be fine too...) -- RoninBK _{T C} 22:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the hoaxes. Not that all articles can be improved to encyclopaedic standards however.! pablo 22:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh Pablo, I have overstated the failure of deletion only from the deletionist perspective. Imagine an encyclopedia where all the new articles met our demanding guidelines and all new editors knew what was encyclopedic and what wasn't. There would be nothing needing deletion. Landfills are still necessary, but someday maybe they won't be! --Mike Cline (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

But because all articles do not meet our (not really so demanding) guidelines, we do need to remove, repurpose or recycle some of them. pablo 22:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Pablo, would you or would you not agree that if there was a mechanism that ensured every new article met our WP:GNG and associated SNGs unequivocally, that the need for our elaborate deletion mechanisms might be religated to the unusual and occasional? --Mike Cline (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, that seems self-evident. But it wouldn't be Wikipedia. I think that there's a more interesting variety of articles here because it's possible for editors to submit imperfect (and sometimes downright bad) articles that are then improved (where possible) by others. pablo 23:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, Pablo. And that's why we're here, to help improve the imperfect articles when others would try to eliminate that variety by deletion. Of course we can't save everything; obvious vandalism and patent nonsense should of course be deleted. We're not trying to save those articles. -- RoninBK _{T C} 02:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

My First Rescue!

It's a small thing, but the template User trout has been rescued from deletion. Woot!
It looks like this:

In an emergency, this user may be slapped with a trout.

Guy Macon 13:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Really? Really? I'd encourage you to look deeper into what article rescue is really about. I came here hoping to give an attaboy for a job well done. Instead, I find myself tempted to leave an incivil message about missing the point. At the end of the day, how will a user page template help our readers who come to Wikipedia seeking knowledge? Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I purposely chose what looked like the least important candidate for deletion (other than obviously bad stuff that deserves to be deleted) to get my feet wet with, figuring that I would probably fail. That way any mistakes caused by my inexperience would cause minimum harm. You might wish to consider this advice from [ WP:BITE ]: nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. I think it would be fair to say that this applies to new article rescuers as well as to new Wikipedia editors Guy Macon 01:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

When I look at Special:Contributions/Guymacon, I don't see that you've done any rescuing whatsoever. You tagged something, voted in the same discussion, and it was kept. The process of article rescue involves...

1. Reviewing an article deletion nomination for specific, policy based deletion rationale
2. Evaluating it, often as should have been done per WP:BEFORE, and finding out whether or not the problem is fixable.
3. If fixable, fixing it or getting someone else to do it.

At no point is "voting" or "tagging with {{rescue}}" an essential--or even productive, in many cases--part of the rescue process. By all means, feel free to go out and try again to garner a first rescue. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't much of a rescue, the nominator withdrew the nomination. And in all honesty, the Template namespace version SHOULD have been deleted per Wikipedia:Userbox migration since it had already been moved to userspace at User:SheffieldSteel/Trout. Besides, the Rescue tag is supposed to be used for Article namespace. Highly inappropriate Rescue. -- RoninBK _{T C} 11:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I take that back about non-Article namespace since there is precedent for using it elsewhere, though it is not within our primary focus, (not enough of us are really that proficient in Template syntax) -- RoninBK _{T C} 11:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• well, its a very long convoluted story, Jc, but, I would hazard to guess that this rescue will help keep the trout meme alive on wikipedia, and one day it will be used to admonish a user who wrongly nominated an article for deletion, and that article will be saved, and 50 years hence, a young physicist will have an epiphany while reading the article via the "random article" link and eating some funyuns. The article will be 50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up (currently not in existence, but it surely will be recreated one day) and will have no relation to physics, but for some reason (perhaps the boundless energy of Emmanuel Lewis) it cause this physicist to invent a real Perpetual motion machine. That being said, template rescue is really not ARS's mission, but you gotta start somewhere.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Sorry, but someone had to do it. SnottyWong ^confess 05:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that user space templates are inherently outside of scope. But when your total edits on the template is adding the resuce template, then congratulation yourself for a sucessful rescue is missing the point. We are about fixing the concerns that lead to articles beeing nominated. We are not about casting votes in discussions. Taemyr (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron keeps getting slandered

• A recent RFC about an active member of the ARS, has caused a lot of people to go there just to bash the ARS itself, both on the RFC page itself Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden and its talk page. People seem to be attacking the ARS more than the particular editor. The nominating editor is also drafting a proposal to dramatically limit the ARS User:Snottywong/ARS proposal. Seems like something that the ARS members might want to be involved in. Dream Focus 22:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Dream Focus, this has nothing to do with the core work of the ARS, which is (in case it had slipped your mind) improving articles which are nominated for deletion. Your posting here is akin to adding a {{rescue}} tag to the RFC itself, solely in order increase the chances of more people who agree with you turning up there. pablo 22:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It has everything to do with the ARS since that is the only reason some of them are going after one of its active members, as evident by their comments. Dream Focus 22:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Which articles are you hoping to "save" by posting these allegations here exactly? pablo 22:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say a fair number of us are following CW's tar-and-feathering, and its fair to place a note here noting that ARS-slagging there is in full force like a baptist preacher at a tent revival talking about methodists. That being said, I agree with pablo that the RfC is not about the ARS, so I've chosen to ignore that and I encourage others to do the same. I've only skimmed Snotty's proposal, but most of the ideas seem quite bureaucratic and absolutely unworkable, but I'll comment on the talk page of the draft if I decide to explain in detail. Some vocal editors have complained about the ARS since its inception, despite positive coverage in the media, its all the same rehash.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the same rehash; it's the same issues, Milo; always has been. The thing is that they are pretty much all editor issues rather than project issues. pablo 23:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not a psychologist, but what's that phenomenon that causes people to blame groups instead of individuals, because it's easier to do so. Anyone know? So instead of someone saying the Colonel or Dream or me or whoever are their problem, they say "THE ARS". If there was a formal deletionist squad, perhaps we'd do the same thing. I can get irritated at The Wordsmith for his recent spate for AfDs noms which had a number of bad noms, but I'm not inclined to just slag the kid as if he's not a human being but some evil force.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know offhand, but part of the reason in this case, and one of the valid project issues, was the worry that the ARS would act as a (and I am quoting from memory) "general inclusionist noticeboard". That was not unfounded given Ikip's attempt to merge various projects (and worse, their 'membership') into here, and that same issue is evident with Dream Focus' post above. pablo 23:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC) just for the record Heh … seems I was quoting myself^diff and the quotation I was looking for was "general-purpose deletion noticeboard" pablo 00:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. If all people used the ARS for was to increase sourcing, there would be no issue. By picking AfDs carefully, getting good sources, engaging collegialy with those who disagree, and not contesting existing consensus on inclusion standards, I rescue articles consistently. Occasionally, people still try to tar me (despite my vocal rejection of "ARS membership") with that brush, but then I trot out an article or two that I've rescued and substantially improved and the objections seem to dry up. Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I would also suggest that the best way to improve the reputation of ARS in the general community is to rise above the petty arguments and just do the work. The vast majority of WP editors are neither deletionists nor inclusionists. Being at either end of that spectrum is fine, and I think, having the extremes helps, so long as we remain civil. But if you are an extreme inclusionist, attacking deletionists, your arguments will be dismissed by the vast majority of editors. I would point to Uncle G as an good example we should follow. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with pablo's comment that there isn't a problem with the way ARS is set up, but there is a problem with some (or perhaps many) of the editors who are members. The aforementioned proposal that I threw together was a collection of thoughts I'd had (some of which were inspired by ideas that Jclemens had expressed previously) for ways to reform the ARS such that the editors who give it a bad name would no longer be able to do so. This is likely why Dream would immediately view it as "limiting", because it closes all the loopholes that are frequently abused to push along the radical inclusionist battle plan (like legal canvassing, votestacking, etc). I don't have any delusions that my proposal will be taken seriously by very many ARS members, but I think it is a useful starting point for a discussion on how to fix the obvious problems with this organization, as perceived by the Wikipedia community in general. And you can't deny that there is a strong perception that this organization suffers from some major problems. SnottyWong ^spout 23:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Vote stacking and canvassing? Indeed. If the article isn't improved, then the number of people turning out isn't relevant. And many people such as yourself actively participate in articles tagged, and almost always say delete. So tagging something for rescue isn't just attracting people who vote one way or another. Your mention of a "radical inclusionist battle plan" is absolutely absurd. Dream Focus 02:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I leave my name here as a member because I still feel that the work of rescuing articles is valid. I don't usually bother to tag articles anymore, and instead just go ahead and work on the articles I find at AfD that I believe I can rescue. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. I also check the ARS category regularly, but often find things there I am not willing to spend my time on. I read the comments of those who say the ARS is just a vote-stacking mechanism, but just like in every previous MfD, there has never been any proof of this. I don't comment on a tagged AfD unless I have added something to the article, the work has already been done by someone else, or there is a glaring violation of WP:BEFORE. If another MfD is started, or an actual proposal is made at VP, I will certainly comment, but there are probaly a lot of other editors like me who don't get into the drama of it all, and just like to rescue articles. I won't waste any of my time on a proposal until it leaves user space and is actually put before the community. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 00:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair play Jim (and JClemens, and Uncle G, and many others). There are "article rescuers" and there are people who identify as "members" of ARS– and they are not necessarily the same thing. pablo 00:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you implying that since I consider myself a member of the ARS, i'm one of the bad guys? :P Silverseren^C 00:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hellz noe. I suppose you could break down "There are "article rescuers" and there are people who identify as "members" of ARS– and they are not necessarily the same thing" as "article rescuing" does necessarily require membership of the ARS, and membership of the ARS does not necessarily mean that one is an "article rescuer". pablo 00:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am a member of the ARS but not (so far) an article rescuer. In my case this is because I mostly focus my work on Wikipedia on a narrow range of topics involving electronics engineering, and I am looking for articles in that narrow area that I can rescue. Guy Macon 21:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

FedEx Express Flight 647

FedEx Express Flight 647 is currently at AFD. Is this one worthy of rescue? Sources available include Aviation Safety Network and the NTSB report of the investigation into the accident. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

*takes out reference gun* RAT-A-TAT-TAT! *blows smoke from the barrel* Silverseren^C 09:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've never gotten into the air crash AfDs in any detail, i don't really understand why people get so crazed about ones that have sourcing. Do ones like this all need separate articles or would they be more useful if combined into an article like Aircraft incidents of 2003? I have no idea.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ARSB

Template:ARSB has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

It looks like these are not in use, but thought you might want to know. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants a copy of it, or for me to move it to a subpage of this project, just let me know. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Article Creation Squadron?

Now, I know it doesn't fall under our purview, but I just wanted to make a suggestion about some articles that should be created. If you guys don't want to do it, then I can just take it over to WP:RA. Anyways, an hour or so ago, I somehow found myself browsing through Wikipedia Review's forum. Don't ask me how it happened, it just did (At first I thought I was on 4chan, but with better spelling and sentence structure).

While browsing through there, I came across this thread. And I thought it would be pretty amusing if someone went about and created all of the articles (at least the actual notable ones) that they mentioned on there. I have no idea if that would mean we are supporting or opposing Wikipedia Review, but I still think it would be funny as hell. A couple of the subjects they mentioned do have articles, so make sure you check for that.

If you guys feel up to it, I think it would be a lot of fun. Oh, and I call Gottlob Espenlaub. He's mine. >:3 Silverseren^C 06:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Is everyone ignoring me? :( Silverseren^C 21:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to involve lots of extra work for people to again discuss articles which already have been nominated for deletion and a decision has been made to delete the article. Ulner (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

...wha? What are you talking about? As far as I know, none of these articles have been made before. Gottlob Espenlaub hasn't, at least. What do you mean? Silverseren^C 21:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Its just Wikipedia Review have been known to attack legendary editors such as ANobody and Benji. Im not sure they deserve any of our attention. Gottlob Espenlaub has a cool sounding name though, will look out for when you create the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care all that much about WR. It's just the fact that their complaining is highly useful to making articles. I would have never ended up fixing up the article on Hogg (novel) if they hadn't made a thread complaining about it. And don't they attack pretty much everyone anyways? Essentially, anyone who is semi-important or known on WP gets attacked by them. I found the instances where I was mentioned on WR to be highly amusing. Tarc has to try much harder if he wants to insult me. :P Silverseren^C 22:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• WR is an interesting place, many there are negative about wikipedia but they are also very bright. I have created a few articles before that posters there were "shocked" didn't exist.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks to their complaining, i've written Gottlob Espenlaub, Charles Coolidge Parlin, National Analysts, William Caskey Swaim, William Jordan (actor), and Murder of Carlos Castro. Silverseren^C 21:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Seems like a pointy way of deciding which articles to write. Almost like you're writing articles out of spite, or to "teach them a lesson". That may not be your intention, but that's how it comes off. Just my 2¢. Interesting articles though. SnottyWong ^chatter 23:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Like i've said before, I don't care what they think or about WR in general. They just give me good article topics that I wouldn't have thought of otherwise. Silverseren^C 23:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Snotty, that's glass half empty way to view it. You have some of these disaffected academic phd types over there that do identify articles that should exist, like Tureng Tepe (to pick one i saw suggested and subsequently created). They don't need to be taught a lesson, they've just tired of the project (or been banned from it for whatever drama of years ago).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems: a trove of articles waiting to be rescued

I'm not sure to what extent ARS members are aware of the large source of rescuable articles that get listed at WP:CP. These articles get listed because they contain copyright violations, and if no-one deals with them after 7 days, they usually get deleted or stubbified. Often they're about quite notable subjects: for example, today I blanked the very notable Insurgency in Ogaden. We also have the notable Australia – United Arab Emirates relations, Jackie Fields and History of Nicosia fast heading towards redlink territory.

Rescuing these articles would (a) help save worthy articles from deletion; and (b) help address copyright violations. (Sorry for the cheeky attention-grabbing edit summary) --Mkativerata (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestions - I've snagged Jackie Fields and am fixing that one up now. I didn't actually see the edit summary, but now I'm curious! - ManicSpider (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Nice one - it's not often you find a world boxing champion on the scrapheap. By the way, if anyone wanted to nominate a complete copyvio rewrite at DYK, you'd certainly have my support. The DYK rules don't directly address whether you can nominate a copyvio rewrite, but in my view it would constitute a "new article". --Mkativerata (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how that works - I rewrote one the other day and people suggested I put it up for a DYK but I wasn't sure how to interpret the rules. In one sense, you have increased the article five-fold from nothing (deleting the CopyVio material) but another interpretation might be that you've written less than the original inelligble article (if you see what I mean). - ManicSpider (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  In my view, a complete rewrite of a copyvio is from scratch, so it shouldn't matter how long the copyvio was. If you can get any of them above 1500 characters of prose (the minimum for a new creation), I'd suggest giving it a go. Let me know if you need any help: the rules of DYK are labyrinthine and more of them are not in any way related to supporting the creation of good content.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for a Rescue-to-FA Bounty

I propose that the Article Rescue Squadron sponsor a competition for the Wikipedia:Bounty board. I am putting down $10 of my own money as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation in the name of the first editor, or group of editors who takes an article tagged with {{Rescue}} in 2011, and not only rescues it from AfD, but with six months of it's AfD closure elevates it to Featured Article status. I also challenge my fellow ARS members to make a matching donation.

The only criteria I would add is that it:

• Has to have been Nominated for Deletion on or after January 1, 2011. No fair resting on our already accomplished laurels.
• Has to have been tagged for {{Rescue}} during the debate and have been significantly improved between the time of Rescue tag and the close of the debate. Anything we would add to our Hall of Fame would qualify for the Bounty.
• Of those articles which are Bounty-qualified, the first article to reach Featured Article status would win.

I'd like to get some input from the Project before I go ahead and post the Bounty. Is there anything I should add/tweak/change? Do you guys agree with this? Or would this just add fuel to the haters' fires? -- RoninBK _{T C} 07:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea in general. I'm not sure what others would think about it. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with the idea in principle and would stump up some $$ to see it done (frankly, I think my $$ is safe!). Just a couple of caveats: ARS members would have to recuse themselves from any FAC discussion, and the deletion nom would have to be genuine. One sticking point could be FAC: that's a venue under a lot of stress with not enough reviewers, so they may object to their forum being used for reward (even though the $$ is going to WMF).--Mkativerata (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It happens all the time at WP:BOUNTY, and as far as I am aware there isn't a whole lot of objection to the practice as long as the money is going to the Foundation, and not to individual editors. (An RFC on directly paying editors at WP:RFC/PAID resulted in a no consensus, even with Jimbo himself opposed to the idea.) I don't believe that it would be necessary to recuse ourselves in the FAC process though as long as ARS members keep their discussions germane to FA criteria. In fact the FAC would seem to require that the article's supporters participate in the discussion to address any concerns raised.

Tell me about your ARS experience

I think ARS is the most important thing on Wikipedia. Fixing articles that would otherwise be deleted is extremely important. I have found it to be very hard work but also rewarding in and of itself. It's also great when others appreciate my efforts. — BUT — The dicussions in AfD and having others actively working against my efforts is awful and I find it extremely tiring. I've only rescued a handful of articles, but the ones I did, took — on average — 10 hours of effort each. And it can all be undone with 30 seconds of effort on somebody else's part. That's a 1200 to 1 ratio.

I ended up taking a wikibreak for well over a month after having rescued just a few articles. And watching what other ARS members go through is very depressing. I haven't been doing any rescuing or voting in AfD's since I've been back.

I have been keeping tabs on things though. And I have noticed the ARS superstars and they keep plugging away and they don't seem to suffer from what I was going through. Or maybe they just don't show it. Either way it's very inspirational.

There are over 350 members in ARS but I only seem to see a couple dozen (the superstars) that are really active. I'm wondering if the rest happened to have the same trouble I have. I thank my lucky stars that the ARS superstars are here and helping out. I'm wondering how they cope with all the negative stuff or if everybody's ARS experience is different than mine. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

A userbox on your user page reads, "This user is a true Wikipedian and allows everyone in the universe to completely rewrite every edit he has written on Wikipedia." Presumably, being open to having your edits completely rewritten would include being open to having your edits deleted as well. Why does being a "true Wikipedian" cause you so much stress that you have to go on wikibreak? You may not be heeding this essay faithfully enough. Which AfD was so painful that it prompted the wikibreak? SnottyWong ^gab 15:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Jeebus.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand completely where you're coming from. There are over 70 articles nominated per day, give or take. So many seem to be poorly referenced, badly written, suffering from CopyVios - but the subjects are notable. You mentioned the maths - it's easy to feel despair when you're continuously playing Sisyphus pushing articles uphill. I explained ARS to my friend like being an Emergency Room doctor. You save who you can, and you just have to let the rest go. I left for a while because I felt people were more eager to do the easy delete than the hard-work fix and it made me a bit sad. But at the end of the day, people will come and go. Articles will be created, edited and deleted. All things change. I have helped to preserve Smound, which was an AfD for patent nonsense that turned out to be not-so-nonsensical, Virginia Whitehill who was nominated as a non-notable BLP who was one of the main movers of the reproductive rights movement in Texas. I think in the end you have to savor your moments of victory, and give in gracefully when the consensus falls against you. It's 3am, so this may not make sense. ^_^ - ManicSpider (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Afd's are almost always a gamble and gambling is inherently stressful. Especially when one's invested some time in finding and inserting sources. As far as stress, one needs a thick skin to participate in WP in general, that's not going to change anytime soon. I use a couple of stress-reduction strategies. One is to make only one keep post, but include as many links as possible at that time. Mentioning their publishers is good and only takes a few more moments. Then I rely on the superstars to notice and do followup argumentation if necessary - wimpy, but I tell myself, better that than burning out. I suppose their natural talents and life experiences have given them resiliency and debating skills and so it's sort of a division of labor. A dedicated researcher has a lot of value here, sometimes you have to dig thru umpteen pages of irrelevant or unreliable material. The superstars do freely pass out compliments to the researchers and that helps :) The other strategy is...scheduling rescue attempts...anticipating that you'll lose some, that any one may be stressful...balancing act. Novickas (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have found that the rescue tag is being used far less often than it did when I started. I also see that there are less articles that are tagged that are in areas in which I am interested. I still check the cat regularly to look for viable articles, but usually find better possibilities at AfD that I can source without tagging and getting others involved. And we seem to be in the midst of yet another cycle of unsubstantiated accusations of vote-stacking being tossed around directly accusing all 350 people on that member list. I generally don't stress over unsuccessful rescues as much as I do about the accusations and clear bad faith on the part of those who wish to paint the entire ARS with a broad brush, and ignore the fact that they are directly accusing every member when they make such statements. I think this is part of why I don't tag articles more often. It has the possibility of bringing the entire AfD under attack (as opposed to scrutiny) by its simple placement. Bad nominations are made every day, and it's usually easy to identify at least one article to quietly source and rescue without bringing it to the attention of those editors who mistakenly conflate notability with importance. I guess I have been a little more focused on rescue as a purpose rather than a process, because I see the process as being a drama magnet. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 17:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. Silverseren^C 19:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm also in agreement that a "squadron" (or really an organization of any kind) is unnecessary for the purposes of rescuing articles. Rescuing is an individual effort. While individual members of the organization may be involved in genuine rescue work, the organization itself exists only as a way for like-minded individuals to organize themselves and push their POV about how WP should be. This is the genesis of the drama. This provokes other editors (who may not share your ideology) to feel like they need to push back to counteract the efforts of "the other side". Thus, a battle is formed. If both non-members and members alike are in agreement that an organization is unnecessary for rescuing articles, then what are we waiting for? SnottyWong ^chat 19:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That was a really nice job at twisting what JimMiller said. I mean, amazing job really, since you practically reversed the entire intention. That requires real English skills.

The issue is not with the ARS, but with the editors that are accusing all of us at every turn. You are one of the chief members of that clique, actually. Yes, the ARS needs to work better and we need to fix some things internally, we've all acknowledged that fact. But that doesn't change the truth that, no matter what we change, no matter how perfect we are, there will always be a group of people that it will not satisfy and there will always be accusations against us. It is for that reason that article rescuing in tiring, having to argue constantly with users like yourself. Silverseren^C 20:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are fatigued from being forced to constantly argue with people like me. I wish there was something I could do to help, but I can't think of anything at the moment. I don't think that I twisted Jim Miller's words necessarily, I just expanded on his thoughts and took them to their logical conclusion. It's not even that I object to the ARS itself, since there are other useful wikiprojects out that are based on tasks which are purely individual efforts, and the projects help to make sure those tasks are getting done right (e.g. New page patrol and Copyeditors' guild). What I (and the vast majority of other editors who speak critically of the squadron) am mainly opposed to is the {{rescue}} template, and this is directly what Jim Miller was referring to above. Since we all agree that rescuing is an individual effort, what is the purpose of the {{rescue}} template other than to attract the attention of like-minded editors to an AfD? In practice, it tends to attract the attention of like-minded (read:inclusionist) editors as well as editors of other ideologies who feel the need to counteract the implicit canvassing brought about by the {{rescue}} template. Thus, an unnecessary WP:BATTLE is born at each and every rescue-tagged AfD. SnottyWong ^comment 20:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I firmly believe that when we as community have to delete an article, we as a community have failed. Deletion is merely a tactic and I wrote a metaphorical essay about that: Archimedes was deleted. Now I've also helped rescue a few articles and view ARS as a noble endeavor by devoted Wikipedian's to further all the strategic goals of WP and as a methodology to prevent and mitigate the need for and effects of deletion. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats a good essay, lets hope it doesnt prove prescient. I fear the Squad no longer has much chance of exerting strategic influence. Even the mighty Ikip was unable to achieve much in that regard. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Snotty say: "I wish there was something I could do to help, but I can't think of anything at the moment". (hmmm... idle thoughts...). The tag has a valid use though, seriously. When I find I can source an article myself, I rarely use it, I just do the work. But sometimes those articles are ones I have found tagged by someone else who didn't have the time to source it themselves. Some of us are frankly better at spotting the articles worth saving, which is a valuable part of the squad's job.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly right. - ManicSpider (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Youre not suffering alone Hydrox . 2010 was certainly an Annus horribilis for the Squad. Okip recently posted here about the emotional turmoil many veterans have suffered. The Foundation have a study showing a fearful pattern that seems to be shared by the different Wikipedias in all the various languages. They all start with rapid growth and inclusionist values but eventually an inflexion point is reached where deletionism becomes ascendant and from that point the rate of growth rapidly declines and never recovers. Not all languages have reached that point yet, but all seem to be on the same path. Personally, even though I agree about the Squads importance, ive resolved to be much less active in AfDs this year, not that I was ever a superstar. Folk with strongly held contrasting views never bothers me, and I don’t mind that some of our efforts will go to waste. But I cannot abide a traitor so I find it quite distressing when editors wed expect to have our backs join in the attacks on prominent squad members. Ive also had a revelation Id like to share, which is that for all their successes deletionists have their share of emotional pain. I used to think everyone saw the Squads work as obviously heroic and on the side of the angels, but in the eyes of some deletionists squad members can be bullies! From the SHOUTING and emotive edit summaries deletionists make in response to rescue efforts, it appears that some of them feel we are a threat to Wikpedias academic integrity. It doesnt seem worth causing them upset if weve got no long term chance of upholding our people and content friendly values. Ultimately, one of two things are going to happen to Wikipedia. As deletionists increasingly get their way and encounter less opposition, they may begin to have a change of heart. God works this way sometimes, winning through apparent weakness. In this scenario effective Jim Miller types who perform low key undramatic rescues may play an important role, but there will be no more heroes after the fashion of Anobody or Ikip. Alternatively, deletionists will just keep raising their standards and slam the door on new content, until our article count begins to fall. At this point its just a matter of time before Wikiepedia is replaced as the worlds no 1 reference source, and follows Citizendium by descending into an elite and irrelevant academic backwater. The replacement will hopefully have inclusionist values hardcoded into its founding pillars, to protect it from following the historical trajectory of the other Wikipedias. I can imagine a permanent arbcom staffed by legends such as Ikip, Anobody, Benji, Dream , Milowent, yourself, MSQ, RAN and the Colonel. Either way, we don’t know for many years and things are likely going to get worse before they get better. In the end, good will triumph over evil. It is inevitable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• If not for ARS, I doubt I would be active at all on wikipedia. One editor started a vendetta against a group of related articles around August 2009, and I found the ARS, and learned that notable subject articles were indeed getting deleted. I realized that anyone really can edit wikipedia, and make a difference. I also love obscure knowledge and wikipedia has more of that (99% of it "notable", in fact) than anywhere since the dawn of time. Sometimes I get extremely angry in AfD and my comments show it, I go on hunger strikes and call deletion sprees death marches and book burnings but I find this therapeutic. Especially when I win. Then I dance on the virtual graves of my opponents. But SERIOUSLY, even most of those who are deletion-minded can be got along with and do make valuable contributions to the project. You can't take it too seriously, even though saving articles is awesome stuff. Even Abraham Lincoln, in the darkest days of the American Civil War, would read lengthy excerpts of contemporary humorists to his horrified cabinet--lest he lose all hope. Don't lose hope.... I typed this earlier today see some intervening comments above are coming in, and our dear friend Snotty is among them (shiver!), which I'll look at now.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I believe deletion is necessary at times. When I research something and can't find any evidence of notability, I put in a 'Delete' vote - while, as I said above, there's a lot of notable neglected articles, there's also a lot of spam and cruft and general crap. On the other hand, I don't understand why you're being so antagonistic, Snottywong. In its present form, how is ARS really any different to the Unreferenced BLP Rescue group? It's simply a group of like minded individuals who just look at all articles up for deletion, not just unreferenced BLPs. As long as people are fixing and referencing articles, how does that hurt you or Wikipedia? But then, I get the feeling that there's a lot of old politics mixed in here that I don't quite understand. And to be honest, FeydHuxtable emotive language like calling people 'traitors' because they don't 'have our back' doesn't help - surely if Wikipedia isn't what we want it to be and is replaced, people will just move there when that happens? Honestly, there doesn't need to be a Battleground - let's just save the good articles when we see them. - ManicSpider (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC).

Youre right, 'traitors' probably isnt a helpful word, they arent I guess, just seems like that sometimes. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• When I'm on arbcom, we'll let you off easy for that. :-) --Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

*lol* Yay for being second against the wall when the revolution comes! - ManicSpider (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I love H2G2 references. Don't forget your towel. Thanks for the input everybody. It has been very helpful to find out about other people's ARS experiences. Best regards. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is my experience, such as it is, as a total newbie with the ARS. I am in complete agreement with the aims of the ARS, but am still a bit hesitant concerning whether I have the knowledge and experience to do a good job of rescuing an article if I do it alone. Because of this I have been watching the efforts of others here and hope to jump in by adding a reference here or rewriting a paragraph there until I gain more confidence. I would imagine that there are others here who have the same hesitation. Guy Macon 03:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not terribly active on Wikipedia at the moment; I mostly just watch my watchlist to make sure no vandalism happens there. This is a time thing more than anything. When I do want to give a bit of time to Wikipedia I find an AfD article that I think is not just notable, but is something that I can fix so that no reasonable person can argue otherwise, and I put in the work to make it a fully cited article. This is a lot of work which is why I do it so rarely; and sometimes my first assessment is wrong so it's a harder sell than I'd expected. But so far nothing I've put that much work into has been deleted; I may well be lucky, but it's let me keep my enthusiasm (tempered by my lack of time...) about the whole thing. --Zeborah (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• There are > 350 people on the ARS member list, an impressive number to be sure. But this means ... not much, other than at one time these people endorsed the stated aims of the project (improving articles which are nominated for deletion to address the concerns raised by the nominator, in case anyone had forgotten). Looking down that list I find inactive editors, editors with very low contribution counts, blocked vandals, banned sockpuppeteers etc (for example one has 16 edits, 6 of which are to article space; another has not edited since 2008; yet another is banned after years of creating (and "rescuing") self-promotional articles and using an army of sockpuppets to do so). There are many familiar names of active editors, but no more than a handful of editors who actually perform "article rescue". Conversely there are many missing names – editors who do routinely improve articles but choose (for whatever reason) not to add their names to the list.
  Feyd's wailing about rampant deletionism leading to a falling article count is, of course, bollocks. There are many articles still left to create. Obviously article creation goes through a quasi-exponential phase when you start an encyclopaedia with an article count of 0. But maintaining the content that we do have takes work and editor time too – look at the articles that are in one or more maintenance categories to get an idea of the level of work that is involved there. Anyone who can't find a {{rescue}}-tagged and rescuable article might want to improve one which isn't nominated for deletion yet, but may be nominated in the future. Deletion of some articles is inevitable, and AfD fills an important role. Without it there would be more articles like Neteraantmwmw, created back in the "sources, schmources" bad old days (or the good old days when anyone could create an article about anything they wanted, depending on your point of view).
   pablo 11:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I started patrolling AfD for articles to fix long before the ARS was even a gleam in User:Tlogmer's eye. I point to efforts such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women Fully Clothed and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitution in the Czech Republic, where in both cases the Notability had not yet been established in the article, but turned out to be clearly notable subjects. I joined ARS when it formed with the idea that we would be doing more of this.

I believe that Wikipedia is supposed to be the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, even if you're just a fan of whatever it is you're writing on. You should not have to be a initiated into the cabal to be able to have an article in Wikipedia. Time and time again, I have seen articles that have been nominated straight off of New Page Patrol, even seen articles CSD'ed out from under the creator's nose while they were still trying to figure out the site. This was back before we had the simple litmus test of the General Notability Guideline; back then the concept of "Notability" was used as a kludge to bash articles that the Deletionists didn't like, or for that matter didn't understand. Even though we have a more refined process nowadays, it's still not as user friendly as it needs to be to truly be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. And this is why Wikipedia needs groups like the ARS, so that newbie editors who suddenly and unexpectedly have their work up for nomination can turn to a group of Wikipedia experts that can help turn their embryonic article into a fully developed piece.

Now having said all of that, I am fully aware that there has been abuse in the past, just like how the Notability guideline has been abused in its early history. I do not condone !vote stacking or cavnassing, that is not (nor has ever been) what the Rescue tag was designed for. Confirmed WP:SOCKs and blocked users should be removed from our roster. I would not remove inactive members, (I myself tend to be a WikiOgre, only coming out of my cave in fits and starts.) We should do more and more to distance ourselves from behavior which is not in the true spirit of our mission. And we need to do more to portray ourselves as a positive force within the encyclopedia. Part of the reason for the decline in the project is that good editors who would save good articles are turned away by our bad public image. -- RoninBK _{T C} 15:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "You should not have to be a initiated into the cabal to be able to have an article in Wikipedia" (assuming that by 'have an article' you mean 'write an article' rather than 'have an article written about you'). By the same token, you don't need to join the ARS to improve ('rescue' if you prefer) articles which are in danger of deletion.
Mike Cline's statement that 'if we ... have to delete an article, then we ... have failed' overstates things; if nothing were ever deleted, Wikipedia would resemble the internet as a whole; a repository for random thoughts, pr0nz, hoaxes, lies, opinions, with a few facts tucked away here and there.

See also

• User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing
• When Nothing Is Better Than Something

 pablo 21:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You assume correctly about "have an article," I'm not talking about someone trying to put an article up about themselves. And I don't disagree with you about having to join this WikiProject, or any WikiProject for that matter. I would differ with you on your "if nothing were deleted" point though, I think you are overstating things just as much. I believe that if half the amount of effort that people put into deletion were put into improving those articles to encyclopedic standards, I believe that Wikipedia would truly be the sum of human knowledge... with a few lies, opinions and hoaxes here and there. (Oh and by the way, hoaxes can be fine too...) -- RoninBK _{T C} 22:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the hoaxes. Not that all articles can be improved to encyclopaedic standards however.! pablo 22:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh Pablo, I have overstated the failure of deletion only from the deletionist perspective. Imagine an encyclopedia where all the new articles met our demanding guidelines and all new editors knew what was encyclopedic and what wasn't. There would be nothing needing deletion. Landfills are still necessary, but someday maybe they won't be! --Mike Cline (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

But because all articles do not meet our (not really so demanding) guidelines, we do need to remove, repurpose or recycle some of them. pablo 22:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Pablo, would you or would you not agree that if there was a mechanism that ensured every new article met our WP:GNG and associated SNGs unequivocally, that the need for our elaborate deletion mechanisms might be religated to the unusual and occasional? --Mike Cline (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, that seems self-evident. But it wouldn't be Wikipedia. I think that there's a more interesting variety of articles here because it's possible for editors to submit imperfect (and sometimes downright bad) articles that are then improved (where possible) by others. pablo 23:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, Pablo. And that's why we're here, to help improve the imperfect articles when others would try to eliminate that variety by deletion. Of course we can't save everything; obvious vandalism and patent nonsense should of course be deleted. We're not trying to save those articles. -- RoninBK _{T C} 02:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

My First Rescue!

It's a small thing, but the template User trout has been rescued from deletion. Woot!
It looks like this:

In an emergency, this user may be slapped with a trout.

Guy Macon 13:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Really? Really? I'd encourage you to look deeper into what article rescue is really about. I came here hoping to give an attaboy for a job well done. Instead, I find myself tempted to leave an incivil message about missing the point. At the end of the day, how will a user page template help our readers who come to Wikipedia seeking knowledge? Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I purposely chose what looked like the least important candidate for deletion (other than obviously bad stuff that deserves to be deleted) to get my feet wet with, figuring that I would probably fail. That way any mistakes caused by my inexperience would cause minimum harm. You might wish to consider this advice from [ WP:BITE ]: nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. I think it would be fair to say that this applies to new article rescuers as well as to new Wikipedia editors Guy Macon 01:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

When I look at Special:Contributions/Guymacon, I don't see that you've done any rescuing whatsoever. You tagged something, voted in the same discussion, and it was kept. The process of article rescue involves...

1. Reviewing an article deletion nomination for specific, policy based deletion rationale
2. Evaluating it, often as should have been done per WP:BEFORE, and finding out whether or not the problem is fixable.
3. If fixable, fixing it or getting someone else to do it.

At no point is "voting" or "tagging with {{rescue}}" an essential--or even productive, in many cases--part of the rescue process. By all means, feel free to go out and try again to garner a first rescue. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't much of a rescue, the nominator withdrew the nomination. And in all honesty, the Template namespace version SHOULD have been deleted per Wikipedia:Userbox migration since it had already been moved to userspace at User:SheffieldSteel/Trout. Besides, the Rescue tag is supposed to be used for Article namespace. Highly inappropriate Rescue. -- RoninBK _{T C} 11:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I take that back about non-Article namespace since there is precedent for using it elsewhere, though it is not within our primary focus, (not enough of us are really that proficient in Template syntax) -- RoninBK _{T C} 11:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• well, its a very long convoluted story, Jc, but, I would hazard to guess that this rescue will help keep the trout meme alive on wikipedia, and one day it will be used to admonish a user who wrongly nominated an article for deletion, and that article will be saved, and 50 years hence, a young physicist will have an epiphany while reading the article via the "random article" link and eating some funyuns. The article will be 50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up (currently not in existence, but it surely will be recreated one day) and will have no relation to physics, but for some reason (perhaps the boundless energy of Emmanuel Lewis) it cause this physicist to invent a real Perpetual motion machine. That being said, template rescue is really not ARS's mission, but you gotta start somewhere.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Sorry, but someone had to do it. SnottyWong ^confess 05:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that user space templates are inherently outside of scope. But when your total edits on the template is adding the resuce template, then congratulation yourself for a sucessful rescue is missing the point. We are about fixing the concerns that lead to articles beeing nominated. We are not about casting votes in discussions. Taemyr (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)