Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
resolved |
moving old talk items to archives |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
* '''Nomination withdrawn''', 19 September 2007, [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron|MfD]] |
* '''Nomination withdrawn''', 19 September 2007, [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron|MfD]] |
||
* '''Speedy Keep''', 23 September 2007, [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (2nd nomination)|MfD]] |
* '''Speedy Keep''', 23 September 2007, [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (2nd nomination)|MfD]] |
||
|small= |
|small=yes |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{archive box| |
{{archive box| |
||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
I am a member of this "squadron", but unfortunately I have very little time to browse regularly through AfD lists. I like to do 1-2 things at a time, not 100, so... If you need help, and see this, please leave me a note [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dc76#Article_Rescue_Squadron_to_do.27s here]. I can not promiss help within minutes, neither a wisard's stick, but I can be at your side and honestly help with all I can. :[[User:Dc76|Dc76]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Dc76|talk]]</sup> 06:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC) |
I am a member of this "squadron", but unfortunately I have very little time to browse regularly through AfD lists. I like to do 1-2 things at a time, not 100, so... If you need help, and see this, please leave me a note [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dc76#Article_Rescue_Squadron_to_do.27s here]. I can not promiss help within minutes, neither a wisard's stick, but I can be at your side and honestly help with all I can. :[[User:Dc76|Dc76]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Dc76|talk]]</sup> 06:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
== [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/British House of Commons]]== |
|||
{{stale}} |
|||
A bit off-topic for this project, but the skills are the same. This article was written by [[User:Lord Emsworth]] some years ago, and promoted, deservedly, to FA. But this was before the days of in-line citation, and the references (which Emsworth appears to have used in his usual scholarly fashion) are listed at the foot. Would you be interested in rescuing this FA status? [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 02:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:A bit of a late response but you might do better to enlist the League of Copy Editors; although the skill sets are similar the motivations and therefore style is much different and they are experienced at such challenges. [[User talk:Benjiboi|Benjiboi]] 05:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== AGF is backwards with AfDs; and vote stacking should be ''irrelevant'' == |
|||
{{resolved}} |
|||
I've been paying more attention lately to the AfD process, after I discovered what to me is an obvious sock puppet who has done nothing but propose AfDs or (delete content)(redirect) since registration, targeting articles in a particular field, removing information, often sucessfully, that might be used as arguments against his apparent POV. (From the original edits, the target of his ire was blatant.) |
|||
What I saw, reviewing the successful deletions, was that, apparently, nobody interested in the topic of the article had noticed the AfD. In the field involved, many articles have been created by experts, and, indeed, their work frequently does not initially meet Wikipedia sourcing standards. A standard and legitimate response is to place a citation needed or other tag on the article, not to propose deletion. This particular serial drive-by nominator would allege content problems, sometimes claiming that finding reliable source would be impossible. Most nominator claims were false; for example, the AFD on one particular organization's article claimed that its web site was the work of one single person, and solely original research, when any examination of that site would have found contrary information. (That organization was probably of marginal notability at the time. Now, more than a year later, it is clearly notable, in my opinion, and I've seen excerpts from a forthcoming book about it, published by a major publisher.) Anyone who knew the topic would have recognized the misrepresentations. Yet, apparently, many vote on AfDs with "Delete" without actually doing any research. They seem to assume good faith on the part of the nominator. That's an error. |
|||
Basically, the common-law principle underlying AGF is that testimony is presumed true unless controverted. With an AfD, we have *inherently* contradictory testimony, frequently. We should assume good faith on the part of the article creator and all those who worked on it as well, so the claims of a nominator should *never* be taken as accurate unless verified. |
|||
In a number of AfDs, there was the AfD and a "delete" vote within minutes, not nearly enough time to do any significant research. At a recent RfA, I voted against an administrator candidate because he had been such a delete voter; in the end, his was the only delete vote, because this particular AfD got noticed by people who understood the field. When he noted that this was not one of his finer moments, and said he'd be more careful in the future, I changed my vote to support.... |
|||
The claim of vote stacking is particularly interesting. Wikipedia process generally suffers from what I call participation bias. That is, a particular controversy may attract partisans; plus participation in many AfDs is very small. The latter may actually be quite proper, if those who voted actually did some research trying to find evidence for notability. However, the number of votes is supposed to be irrelevant; rather, the standard is properly the cogency of the arguments presented. Frankly, twere it up to me, I'd remove votes from AfD pages that are, for example, "Delete per nom." Likewise Keep or Delete votes with no facts. Voters should be *responsible* for their votes; a "per nom" vote should be a declaration that the voter has verified every fact alleged by the nominator. What should be actual practice with AfDs would b to separate "votes" from arguments. There is still room for raw votes, but, properly, the discussion of notability should follow standard NPOV practice, though with greatly reduced verifiability standards. For example, someone might argue based on personal knowledge. That's testimony, and it would be admissible in a court of law, so it should likewise be in AfDs; however, the source of claims in an AfD should be stated. "I knew him personally, and X was true, I witnessed it." |
|||
In one ironic example, the AfD for [[Blood electrification]][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blood_electrification_%282nd_nomination%29], there was a delete argument: "Proven quackery" or something like that. Now, if Blood electrification was "proven quackery," -- which it might be, it is certainly quack medicine in my opinion -- surely the proof could be referenced in the article, thus confirming at the same time notability and removing possible POV bias by not having that material included. However, clearly, there is an organization of editors dedicated to removing "quackery" from Wikipedia, even where the quackery is notable. In the case of Blood electrification, I found an FTC complaint (followed by a consent decree) against a provider of equipment used for this process, that specifically mentioned "blood electrification." Reliable source, notable quackery. These editors, or some of them, are not concerned with improving articles, they are concerned with, effectively, censorship, protecting the public from error and misleading claims. And editing articles to balance out POV claims in them, and to remove unsourced claims if they cannot be verified, that's too much work. Much, much faster to run an AfD. Almost all delete voters in the Blood electrification AfD, who presented arguments, claimed that the article was POV. I went over the article, removing nonsense, but most of it was already balanced, not POV, though sometimes inadequately sourced. And I argued that if anyone thought the article was seriously POV, and beyond easy rescue, they could stub it to a definition and give the article some time. Frankly, I don't understand why that AfD was closed as Delete. I see no explanation except for the number of votes. |
|||
Again, some ironies: there was a canvassing warning posted in this AfD. Yet no evidence of actual vote-stacking in the keep direction. The nominator did not give any arguments at all. My own review of the evidence presented was that (1) most delete arguments were based on alleged content problems, (2) some were based on an opinion that reliable source would be impossible to find, and (3) few were based on non-notability. Given that, with about an hour's research, I did find some level of RS, and reported that back to the AfD, I'd have expected the admin closing to pay attention to this evidence. However, there was no explanation with the closing, just "The result was delete." I can say what this looks like to me: Neil counted the votes and/or followed his own opinion. What policy or guideline was followed? Mystery to me. I've seen quite a few AfDs like this. When an AfD is clear and there is little or no dissent, and policy application is obvious, fine. But that was not the case here. I did not, in fact, see a cogent argument for deletion. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 02:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Really thoughtful essay! I added a link to it on my userpage as number 12: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles#Articles_that_all_editors_should_read]. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 05:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::passing by, I think the specific source in the blood electrification example given is not a good one--the "FTC complaint (followed by a consent decree)" takes place in every complaint FTC carries through to a conclusion, whether or not important. a routine law enforcement action does not make something notable. It's like deriving notability from a police blotter. This is not a comment of the debate over that article in general, just the RS example chosen. Disclosure: i !voted Delete, and will again until there is a real source. At this pt, the major source of notability for it has been the articles inserted on its behalf in WP. Not that I am happy with the way we do AfDs. The simplest thing that could help them attainable at present is wider participation, to eliminate the cabal effect one way or another. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 09:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks, DGG. The FTC complaint contains reports of the advertising content used by the defendant. While it's not conclusive as a fact, it is reliable enough to use with attribution, and what is in the consent decree is even more useful, though far less extensive (I did not look at it again to write this). My belief is that an NPOV, verifiable article can be written on the topic, but it's work. I excluded Wikipedia from my searches, as is proper. I also worked on the article, removing inappropriate material and some POV bias, but to do a good job of that would have required much more research than the hour or two I spent, total. The point is that there is such a thing as "blood electrification," there is some theoretical basis in experiment for it -- used way beyond reason, as is common with quackery -- and there are products being sold to do it. It deserves a stub, at least. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Abd|contribs]]) 05:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::but everything is advertised, and not everything is notable. That's how the FTC came to hear about it. The content would be usable, if the subject were notable. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 20:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Rescue}}]] == |
|||
{{resolved}} |
|||
[[Template:{{ucfirst:Rescue}}]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#{{{2|Template:{{ucfirst:Rescue}}}}}|the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page]]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> — [[User talk:Benjiboi|Benjiboi]] 21:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Keep without restrictions. [[User talk:Benjiboi|Benjiboi]] 03:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Why are you hurting Wikipedia? Stop ''hurting'' Wikipedia. == |
|||
{{resolved}} |
|||
You are bad for Wikipedia. Focusing on article rescuing at the expense of article deletion is [[Edmund Burke|Burkean Conservatism]] and based on the fallacious [[Precautionary principle]]. If there was a [[Wikipedia:Article Deletion Armada]] (an article I think we can safely say you'd support deleting), this wouldn't be a problem because the two philosophies would counterbalance one another. There isn't, however. You're an [[M:Inclusionist|Inclusionist]] [[front organization]] and [[Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron#So_the_ARS_are_wild-eyed_inclusionists.3F|you know it]]. With your support for obscure [[internet memes]], if you folks had your way, [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]] would not have been deleted and placed on the spam filter. Saving the [[Wikipedia:Spam|blatant advertisement]] for [[Bawls]] is ''not'' [[Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Examples|something to be proud of]], although the company that sells it likely appreciates your support. [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]] ([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 09:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I hate children and rainbows. |
|||
:Oh, wait, I don't. |
|||
:I do like the idea of the Article Deletion Armada, which already exists in the form of people wanting to tell me what is, and isn't important. Some of them are well meaning, others, not so much, after their article deletions go from AGF to BJAODN. |
|||
:Seeing as how the bar for including something in WP is so low, what the ARS(E) end is all about is fixing things that belong, for some reason, in WP, not some wild-eyed "we must include an article for each belly-button lint color I had on each day!" |
|||
:hm. On a side note, maybe rainbows ''should'' be hated. [[User:Ronabop|Ronabop]] ([[User talk:Ronabop|talk]]) 09:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
A couple of points Zenwhat. The Article Rescue Squdron does not stop the deletion of articles - we cannot! The ultimate decision rests with the closing admin. We simply bring articles up to the [[WP:N|standards]] required to be in wikipedia. "Blatant advertisement" is no reason to delete an article when it has established notability and is sourced, as [[Bawls]] is now. "Blatant advertisement" however is a reason to clean the article up, as was recommended in the last AfD. [[User:Fosnez|Fosnez]] ([[User talk:Fosnez|talk]]) 11:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Ronabop: Deletionists are like lone [[wolves]]. For some unknown reason (perhaps they ''are'' prone to some degree of [[elitism]] -- but it seems justifiable), they don't collaborate as much as they should. In a battle between one or two deletionists here and there and the squadron, the squadron generally wins. [[Bawls]] proved that, although I suspect you attempted to keep the article on [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]] up and failed because of how abundantly clear it was it was becoming a problem. You see the same issue from time-to-time with [[YTMND]], when the [[internet memes]] article was often in horrible condition. |
|||
But there is further proof of the lone wolf nature of the deletionist: '''This discussion.''' It's just me, here. All the other deletionists are busy reading books on mainstream science, teaching college-level courses, and thinking intently on profound philosophical questions. Whereas Inclusionists are likely either--well--I dare not say. I'd [[free speech|speak freely]] but I don't want to violate [[censorship|WP:etiquette]], ''especially'' not here where it would be ''suicide.'' |
|||
Fosnez: Yes you can, because you hijack debates through forcing a vote by appealing to the populist fallacy behind why [[WP:NOT]] states this place isn't a democracy. Frequently, in practice, Wikipedia works by [[WP:CONSENSUS]] where even spurious arguments hold weight. In practice, if there is a horde of users saying ''delete'' while citing as many [[WP:RS|unreliable]] and [[WP:V|unverifiable]] sources they can rip from [[WP:GOOGLE|Google]] as they can -- if they are on an AfD, per [[Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators]] (which you guys have apparently mostly written), they are obligated to appease the mob's wishes. This is why this project has been a massive success at encouraging Wikipedia failure: It doesn't matter whether your arguments are well-founded. Just saying ''Keep - I like it'' is enough. |
|||
Saving articles in and of itself is not a good thing if they are ''bad'' articles. As a preemptive rebuttal to the question, "Who made you in charge of determining article quality?" I have three responses: |
|||
*I'm a Wikipedia editor. Removing nonsense is part of my job. |
|||
*[[Holocaust|Badness is not subjective]]. If it were, nobody would have any grounds to vote "keep," would they? |
|||
*A question, in turn, for you: "Who made you in charge in determining the quality of my determining article quality?" Sheer elitism! |
|||
Lastly, exactly how is [[Bawls]] notable? In conclusion, by supporting "wild-eyed inclusionism" and holding a monopoly of opinion on [[WP:DELETION|deletion policy]] you have [[harm|harmed]] this encyclopedia. [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]] ([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 15:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Oh and [[Think of the children]], really do you need to repost your rantings / soapboxing so we all know you disagree with something. Wikipedia is not, despite evidence to the contrary a social-networking site. It's also not an appropriate venue to spin drama. Coming here to post knowing that this project is here to rescue articles sure seems to be baiting. If you want to improve articles please do so. If you want want to help this project please feel free. [[User talk:Benjiboi|Benjiboi]] 20:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I can see your pissed about something, The ARS may have worked on an article that you personally deemed unworthy to be included in wikipedia. I am not going to change your mind on this subject, and you are not going to change mine. We have both had our little rants now. My final comment will be that the ARS is not responible for the keeping or deleting of articles, '''we simply edit articles to bring them into line with wikipedia policy'''. If you really want to put a stop to the "blatant inclusionism" I suggest you go and take this up with each admin that keeps an article that you personally think should be deleted or have the [[WP:N]] policies changed. [[User:Fosnez|Fosnez]] ([[User talk:Fosnez|talk]]) 20:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Zenwhat, of course saving articles isn't a good thing if they're bad articles. What the ARS is about is changing bad articles into good articles and saving ''those''. --[[User:Zeborah|Zeborah]] ([[User talk:Zeborah|talk]]) 02:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::[[User:Benjiboi]], you're being uncivil. (frowny-face) Why does it seem to me that inclusionists are like [[hippies]] that suddenly turn into werewolves when inclusionism is attacked? [[3RR|Should Deletionists be deleted?]] |
|||
[[User:Fosnez]], [[Assume good faith]]. There were a couple ArbCom decisions I've seen that were horrible and I've found it very difficult to fix [[Austrian economics]] and [[Eastern philosophy]]. Both cases demonstrate the problem of inclusionism: In both cases, my arguments were legitimate and the editors didn't even respond. In the former case, I firmly stood by my edits, in the latter case I let them go. Thus, on both articles, nonsense is still up but in the case of standing by my decision, I was blocked by an admin abusing their power. |
|||
It's not ARS, specifically: I just think you guys are a part of the problem. |
|||
You ''do'' have a blanket policy of saving pages. It's inherent in the project name and goal. You constantly scour Wikipedia for pages to save and, even if you claim to evaluate pages on a case-by-basis (which seems dubious, because of stuff like [[Bawls]]), that is nevertheless a blanket policy to save pages. |
|||
It's not any admins in particular I have a problem with, because as I've said, this is a problem with policy -- not a specific issue of mine. You seem to be assuming here that I am just some kind of POV-pushing troll that was upset because I couldn't violate a certain policy. That's understandable because there are a lot of people like that. But there are also a lot of good editors -- including experienced admins -- who listen to accusations like that and simply leave Wikipedia. This is what could be referred to as "Deleting deletionists" and inclusionists suddenly turn uncivil when it's pointed out. |
|||
You ''are'' responsible for deleting articles because you're an organized mob focused on AfD. The claim "but we're not wild-eyed inclusionists" is [[propaganda]]. |
|||
Now, if you expect me to help shift Wikipedia away from inclusionism by speaking to ''every'' admin on ''every'' article on Wikipedia that opposes an AfD for silly reasons -- come on, man. That seems unreasonable. I'm only [[human]]. If you can't expect one editor to watch '''their own''' pages for AfD tags, then it seems unreasonable to expect me to watch '''every page''' on Wikipedia that is nominated for deletion. I'm not [[Flash (comics)|The Flash]]. I suspect [[User:The Transhumanist]] is, though! [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]] ([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 16:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Are you claiming that [[Bawls]] is lacking notability? Ie. there does not exist multiple independent sources for it. Because that is the extent of ARS involvement in the issue. |
|||
[[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 16:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:[[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]] is blatantly uncivil here, and this whole section could easily be seen as trolling. Consider this from him, starting with the section head: "Why are you hurting Wikipedia?" with its incorporated assumption. Then, "You are bad for Wikipedia." I.e., personalization of the issue. "You're an [[M:Inclusionist|Inclusionist]] [[front organization]] and [[Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron#So_the_ARS_are_wild-eyed_inclusionists.3F|you know it]]." So, not only are those involved with the ARS "wild-eyed inclusionist," but they are deceptive pretenders. "Who made you in charge in determining the quality of my determining article quality? Sheer elitism!" (If someone interferes with Zenwhat's doing his self-appointed "job," they are "elitist." ARS members are *not* in charge of "determining quality," but stand as equals before the administrator who makes the decision.) "...by supporting "wild-eyed inclusionism" and holding a monopoly of opinion on [[WP:DELETION|deletion policy]] you have [[harm|harmed]] this encyclopedia." "Wild-eyed inclusionism" would be a philosophy of including every submitted artlcle. The MediaWiki software is, iu fact, inclusionist, for all ordinary deletion does is to hide articles from ordinary users. Any encyclopedia must create a hierarchy of knowledge, or it becomes useless. I favor allowing all users to see deleted articles (but not through the ordinary indexes), so I'm personally something close to a "wild-eyed inclusionist," in a sense, but most ARS members, I think, don't agree with that. They are simply trying to assume good faith on the part of those who write articles, and help them to create a legitimate article. |
|||
:[[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]] continues, "All the other deletionists are busy reading books on mainstream science, teaching college-level courses, and thinking intently on profound philosophical questions. Whereas Inclusionists are likely either--well--I dare not say. I'd [[free speech|speak freely]] but I don't want to violate [[censorship|WP:etiquette]], ''especially'' not here where it would be ''suicide.''" This is a remarkable piece of text in which he identifies himself as "deletionist," and then communicates that his true opinion of "inclusionists" would get him blocked. Which is *almost* as offensive as voicing that opinion; he has, in fact, said quite a bit already that is uncivil, so I can only assume that what he has refrained from saying would be, perhaps, scatalogically offensive, worthy of immediate block. He imagines that the reason "other deletionists" aren't backing him up here is that they are busying rsearching; yet my observation of the true "deletionists" mass-marking articles for deletion is that they too frequently don't do the most elementary research, they delete from their own quick opinion, or, sometimes, from bias. There is a whole debate over where to draw the line with Wikipedia articles, and, I've predicted, that debate is not going to go away, because it is inherently arbitrary and almost unavoidably elitist. But "deletionists" are, properly, those who have a strong opinion setting a high bar for articles to clear, and who are active enforcing this. Some of them are quite clearly sincere and work hard for the encyclopedia; but others are pursuing some strange personal agenda. And what [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]] is pursuing by posting his offensive claims here is not visible to me. He has personally attacked the Rescue Squadron and its members, but to what end? What did they *specifically* do to him? He hasn't told us. |
|||
:Then, when his blatant trolling is pointed out to him, he asks that we [[WP:AGF|Assume Good Faith]]. About what? He has not stated his intention, all he has done is to claim that "we" belong in this or that offensive category. It's just about pure personal attack. Does he have policy changes to suggest? Does he propose that the ARS disband? Does he wish to change some piece of text, i.e., instructions to ARS members as to how to function? Does he wish to caution ARS members against rescuing "nonsense"? All this would be legitimate. |
|||
:Instead, he tells us that we are not as represented. This is, in fact, [[WP:ABF|An assumption of bad faith]], when he claims: "You ''do'' have a blanket policy of saving pages. It's inherent in the project name and goal. You constantly scour Wikipedia for pages to save and, even if you claim to evaluate pages on a case-by-basis (which seems dubious, because of stuff like [[Bawls]]), that is nevertheless a blanket policy to save pages." Who is "you"? Every member of ARS? Some particular member? I can say that I personally am not going to attempt to rescue a page of nonsense or belly-button lint reports. I'm only going to rescue a page that seems sufficiently notable to me to have an article. I had nothing to do with [[Bawls]], and, indeed, the article somewhat reads like a press release from the company. But that is a *content* problem, not a notability problem, and should be dealt with through ordinary editing, with the whole conflict resolution process available if necessary, not through deletion. The *sole* question for deletion should be, in fact, notability. If a topic is notable but the information in the article is useless, any editor can stub it! There is no need to seek an AfD decision, and, in fact, AfD is not intended to be a response to content problems, except in certain narrow situations. |
|||
:And then we get to the point. [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]] is standing against consensus. "There were a couple ArbCom decisions I've seen that were horrible." I've seen some poor decisions, as well, but nobody is perfect. ArbComm is pretty solid, in my experience, and I read a lot of ArbComm decisions. Arbcomm does not make content decisions, they make process decisions, on behalf of the community; they are the only mechanism for doing that in the presence of conflict that is not simply the decision of a single administrator, in the end. (AfD, for example, may solicit much comment, but a single admin makes the decision.) [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]] then points to content issues, apparently, with two articles, and to being blocked: "I was blocked by an admin abusing their power." |
|||
:Here we come to the crux. If what [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]] is saying is true, there is process for dealing with it, and the ultimate appeal is to ArbComm. Administrators who have abused their blocking power have been de-sysopped. However, given [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]]'s behavior here, I'm not surprised that he might be blocked. He does not seem to know how to behave civilly, to cooperate with people of different POVs to build the encyclopedia. Rather, he is right and they are [censored]. Wikipedia attracts far too many people like this; ultimately, we will need process to deal with such far more efficiently. Above, several editors patiently try to explain that ARS does not make inclusion/deletion decisions, that ARS only improves some articles so that they are not improperly deleted for content reasons, or finds notability proof when such is needed. And the opprobrium from Zenwhat only increases. |
|||
:He wrote: "You seem to be assuming here that I am just some kind of POV-pushing troll that was upset because I couldn't violate a certain policy." Actually, I didn't notice anyone saying that, maybe I missed it. However, reviewing all the above, I do come to that conclusion. The "POV" though, is not some specific position, it is the more diffuse -- and dangerous -- "I am right," vigorously defended, with "counterattack," even pre-emptive attack, against those he thinks disagree with him. |
|||
:He then continues: "That's understandable because there are a lot of people like that. But there are also a lot of good editors -- including experienced admins -- who listen to accusations like that and simply leave Wikipedia. This is what could be referred to as "Deleting deletionists" and inclusionists suddenly turn uncivil when it's pointed out." |
|||
:Again, who was uncivil here? Wikipedia is indeed losing experienced administrators, and, even more, valuable editors, because of the massive inefficiency of the system. Any admin, though, had better be prepared to be accused of this or that offensive behavior, it goes with the territory, unless the admin simply doesn't do much of the job. Who made an accusation against an administrator here? Only [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]]. So I decided to look him up. First statement on his user page: |
|||
:"I'm a polemic reactionary and a n00b. But I'm humble. If I say anything ridiculously stupid, call me on it and I'll likely acknowledge it." Okay, [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]], you've said a series of things that are ridiculously stupid, I've documented them above. Your move. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::OK, please, could you get a room so the rest of us can please [[think of the children]]? [[User talk:Benjiboi|Benjiboi]] 20:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Examples == |
== Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Examples == |
||
| Line 193: | Line 86: | ||
:Zenwhat, I'm puzzled by what you hope to accomplish by coming to a project you apparently don't approve of and engaging in baiting-like edits. Please consider that your efforts might be better put to use elsewhere and your disparaging characterizations of the many members of this project are generally not appreciated. [[User talk:Benjiboi|Benjiboi]] 22:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC) |
:Zenwhat, I'm puzzled by what you hope to accomplish by coming to a project you apparently don't approve of and engaging in baiting-like edits. Please consider that your efforts might be better put to use elsewhere and your disparaging characterizations of the many members of this project are generally not appreciated. [[User talk:Benjiboi|Benjiboi]] 22:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Well, if ARS as it stands is dominated by wild-eyed inclusionists then that is something we will have to do something about. Because the stated purpose of ARS is one that is clearly useful for building a good encyclopedia. [[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 23:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC) |
::Well, if ARS as it stands is dominated by wild-eyed inclusionists then that is something we will have to do something about. Because the stated purpose of ARS is one that is clearly useful for building a good encyclopedia. [[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 23:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
== A request for comment == |
|||
{{resolved}} |
|||
Your opinions, please: |
|||
[[Operation Hump]]. |
|||
And also: |
|||
[[Wolfie]] |
|||
{{Quotation|Wolfie may refer to:<br><br> |
|||
* Wolfie, an indie rock band from Champaign, Illinois<br> |
|||
* Wolfie, nicknamed for Martin Adams, a British darts player<br> |
|||
* Wolfie, nicknamed for Wolfgang Van Halen, an American guitarist.<br> |
|||
* Wolfie, a character from the British TV sitcom Citizen Smith}} |
|||
In the meantime, please see also [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of asteroids/7201–7300]]. [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]] ([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 22:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:All seem notable and perfect for wikipedia. [[User talk:Benjiboi|Benjiboi]] 22:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:What should we be looking for? --[[User:Kizor|Kiz]]<font color="black">[[User_talk:Kizor|o]]</font><font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/Kizor|r]]</font> 22:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::[[Operation Hump]] lead to the first Medal of Honor being given to a black man since the end of the 19'th century. As such it is likely notable. Tone of the article could do with some work. I will either tag or nominate [[Wolfie]] for deletion as soon as I have read up on the notability criteria for bands. There is no real reason to keep the lists of asteroids, but earlier AfD's have ended with an overwhelming consensus to keep so I acknowledge that there is no good reason to delete either. [[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 23:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Not nominating. I am unsure about whether criteria 5 on [[WP:Music]] applies. Also, linked to from wikipedia is this [http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/23230-wheres-wolfie] which is nontrivial, reliable is outside my ability to judge. [[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 23:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::I think, from the quotation above, that Zenwhat was actually referring to [[Wolfie (disambiguation)]], and just gave us the wrong link to [[Wolfie]]. However, I can't see anything wrong with that, either, except the "d"s on the end of "nicknamed". Kizor asked the right question: what are we looking for? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 08:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
(unindent) What is this asteroid AfD? [[WP:POINT]]? It would be insane to delete an article out of a middle of a numbered series. I did a little rummaging about, and [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]] was recently blocked (Jan 10, 24 hours) for edit warring on an article, where he may have been acting to keep fringe theory out of Wikipedia. He's been apparently sympathetic with [[User:ScienceApologist]], whom I've encountered as a strong deletionist when it comes to what he considers (rightly or otherwise) pseudoscience, and who recently expressed his dislike of Wikipedia on Zenwhat's Talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZenwhat&diff=183471581&oldid=183459266] There is, indeed, an anti-pseudoscience or anti-quackery "cabal," which, besides being vigilant in keeping fringe theory out of articles (notable or not), often has used AfD to kill articles on alleged pseudoscience topics, claiming "quackery," for example. (Which is utterly irrelevant. Quack medical theory deserves an article if it is notable, AfD is not to be used to control content, it's a blunt instrument. ''People need to know about quack theories if they will encounter them,'' which is the core of notability: need to know. Useful knowledge. If it's quackery, call it a [[WP:DUCK|duck]] Anyway, this leads me to a theory of why [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]] was trolling here. He wants to get blocked again. Just a theory, and I'm not a mindreader. What in the world are you doing, Zenwhat? --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 04:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::To demonstrate to you all how I'm not a radical deletionist, I created an article that needs expanding, the inclusion of references, and protection from deletionists: [[Ball shagger]]. They sold this item at Wal-Mart, when I worked there and it is, so far as I know, the standard term for it, in America at least. I was surprised to see that the article didn't already exist. Yay for me being able to be the one to include the information! Your input is appreciated. [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]] ([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 10:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::I suggest you read [[WP:POINT]]. [[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 12:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::As for the article, it already exists so I have taken the liberty of redirecting [[Ball shagger]] to [[Ball washer]]. [[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 12:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Ah, thank you! [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]] ([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 05:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Also, Taemyr: You misunderstand my intentions. It is not my intention to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, but to ''help'' Wikipedia by making the point that this group's actions are disruptive. [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]] ([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 05:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::You will note that intentions is not mentioned in [[WP:POINT]]. [[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 06:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Zenwhat, you have neither made your point nor your intentions clear, I suggest you do one or both at your earliest convenience. By now you should have a full understanding that we rescue articles from incorrect deletion by merely following guidelines and policy and improving them to a point that they are up to scratch for inclusion in wikipedia. If you still feel that this is not acceptable, then I suggest you rethink your involvement in wikipedia, because It'll be a cold day in hell before I/we stop improving articles nominated for deletion with resolvable reasons. [[User:Fosnez|Fosnez]] ([[User talk:Fosnez|talk]]) 07:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I'm not going to bother continuing this discussion with unsubstantiated accusations of bad faith being ''justified'' by the fact that [[WP:POINT]] "doesn't mention intentions." <font size="4">[[Zen|☯]]</font> <font face="impact"> [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]]</font> ([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 01:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Just as well. We probably lost the possibility of a productive discussion on this matter two sections ago. --[[User:Kizor|Kiz]]<font color="black">[[User_talk:Kizor|o]]</font><font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/Kizor|r]]</font> 02:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Proposed changes to rescue template. == |
|||
I have made this proposal on the talk page of the Rescue template; [[Template_talk:Rescue#Other_proposal]]. |
|||
Discussion there has gone stale, is there anyone in ARS that has a problem with my suggested template; [[User:Taemyr/Rescue]] [[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 21:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)<br> |
|||
<s>:As this talk page is active please post here whatever proposal you have and link to your proposed template. [[User talk:Benjiboi|Benjiboi]] 01:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:</s>On further look, you got plenty of response but I will second what Fosnez stated that I find no problem with linking the template to our project page and will oppose removing that link. [[User talk:Benjiboi|Benjiboi]] 01:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==New addition== |
|||
{{resolved}} |
|||
I added our template to [[Me and the Pumpkin Queen]] and have begun a pretty substantial revision since its nomination. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 00:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Bawls still needs cleaning up. == |
|||
{{resolved}} |
|||
It's been over a month since [[Bawls]] was last nominated for deletion. [[WP:ARS]] isn't supposed to be just about wikidemocratic vote-stacking. It's also supposed to be about cleaning up bad articles as noted above, correct? So, can somebody here work on [[Bawls]]? Is ''anybody'' here working on fixing it? |
|||
An anonymous user accused it of being an advert and I agree. Attempts to slap an advert tag on it, however, have been unsuccessful. |
|||
I would work on the article myself, but I think it should be flushed and I have absolutely ''no idea'' where you would find sources on this energy drink, other than the company's website or the "'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information" described in [[WP:V]]. |
|||
As an example of "I heard it from somewhere pseudoinformation", from the talkpage: |
|||
{{Quotation|My boyfriend and I were arguing wether or not Bawls was an energy drink or a soda.<br><br> |
|||
Please help}} |
|||
According to [[WP:V]], users should base their edits on ''verifiable, reliable sources'' and '''''not''''' on, for example, what they concluded from a conversation with their boyfriend, which is entirely irrelevant. |
|||
There are a few articles cited as sources, but they appear to be [[puff piece]]s published by less than a handful of mostly obscure organizations as [[infotainment]]. That Wikipedia should latch onto this poor journalistic integrity for the lulz is not a good thing and certainly not in accordance with [[WP:V]] or [[WP:Notability]]. |
|||
Then there's the links to websites owned by the company that makes Bawls. Does anyone here believe these are verifiable, reliable sources? <font size="4">[[Zen|☯]]</font> <font face="impact"> [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]]</font> ([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 01:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: Of course WP:ARS is not about vote-stacking. Articles are listed here to fix them & save them from deletion. And of course people will attempt to abuse this forum to save unworthy articles they wrote. However if people can't fix them, unfortunately they will be deleted. |
|||
: As for this article, I had a glance at it & I'm not entirely the article succeeds in explaining why it is notable; I only learned which country this drink is sold in somewhere down towards the bottom of the page! I'm left with the sense that this is just another unsuccessful product after reading statements like "Due to the lack of sufficient market exposure, Bawls may be difficult to find in certain locations". Does this product have a cult following -- if so, then adding this information would help save it in my eyes. Otherwise, if this article is deleted I'll admit that I won't miss it. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 07:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Your point is worthy of noting on the article's talk page, in fact I think this entire thread should be moved over there. [[User:Benjiboi|<u style="text-decoration:none;font:90% cursive;color:#039">Ben</u>]][[User_talk:Benjiboi|<u style="text-decoration:none;font:90% cursive;color:#090">jiboi</u>]] 02:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Sources exist, that is sufficent to pass [[WP:NOTE]]. My problem with the current article is that it is written as an add. This ought to be fixable, although the fact that it's more than two years since [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bawls|this AfD]] indicates that it might not be. [[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 08:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: My point about the article wasn't to state that the subject wasn't worth an entry in Wikipedia -- nor that its problems aren't fixable -- but simply a critique of it in its current form, & a very subjective one at that (as the phrase "I'm not entirely the article succeeds in explaining why it is notable" ought to signal everyone). Unfortunately, this item has not attracted sufficient attention to rescue it so it might just get deleted, which would not be the end of the matter were it not for the uncomfortable fact that some Wikipedians find one successful AfD discussion for deletion as justification to keep articles deleted. :-( [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 17:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Zenwhat, your posts here seem to be baiting and although I have hope that you have familiarized yourself with ARS's structure and intent, which is pretty clear to most everyone else, let me state clearly that ARS is primarily to address articles that are slated to be deleted because they are in AfD process. Once an article is either deleted or saved then it is on its own. If you honestly are trying to help the Bawls article there are better ways to do so. If you want to re-nom for AfD I suppose that avenue is available as well. As for, yet again, stirring drama and accusing us of vote-staking, it's old and tiring, really I would hope you could find more constructive things then simply posting veiled attacks against this project here and elsewhere. If you want to discuss that article then take it there. [[User talk:Benjiboi|Benjiboi]] 13:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I am not baiting here. I am assuming that your comments above about not being wild-eyed inclusionists were made in good faith. Based on that, I would like for you guys to fix [[Bawls]], please. |
|||
At the very least, [[Bawls#References]] should not contain mostly numbered URLs to bawls.com. <font size="4">[[Zen|☯]]</font> <font face="impact"> [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]]</font> ([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 00:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Zenwhat, your concerns may be valid but they are misplaced. The atlk about improving that article please use that talk page. This project concerns articles within the AfD process. [[User:Benjiboi|<u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#039">Benji</u>]][[User_talk:Benjiboi|<u style="text-decoration:none;font:90% cursive;color:#090">boi</u>]] 08:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== [[:Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics]] == |
== [[:Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics]] == |
||
Revision as of 23:02, 3 February 2008
Barnstar proposal
I personally have no skill making barnstar templates, but I think it would be a good idea if we did somehow have an Article Rescue Squadron barnstar (unless we do have one and I just don't see it) for editors who making considerable contributions to articles that result in their rescue. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- You can ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards for help. I have a few thoughts on an image, but I'm not a very good artist. --Phirazo 18:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, will do. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
|
Rescue
Someone had already uploaded this 'rescue' barnstar, so I snagged it to try a Rescue Squadron barnstar. I can alternately create a different one for us exclusively (any of you who saw mylogo know what I can do, though I *think* I'd just wrap a barnstar in a life preserver, because it's saucy ;-) --Thespian 11:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
- Cool! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
|
Rescue from Deletion Barnstar
There is also the Rescue from Deletion Barnstar with this tall image of a helicopter. I'm not sure whether it's been approved by some awards committee, but requiring that would be very un-wiki.--chaser - t 04:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC) |
- I LOVE this one and speaks to the idea of saving an article as well. I think we could have more than one anyway. Benjiboi 07:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is nice! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
One more:
|
Rescue More!
As I mentioned I was likely to do above, here's another barnstar based on my previously proposed Rescue Squad logo. Since it's all mine, and I give of it to this project, it won't have any conflicts (though I think the helicopter is cute). --Thespian 12:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC) |
- This one also nicely ties in our project's regular logo. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Howabout combining the helicopter and this one and simply adding the life-preserver onto the star like we just pulled it from the river? Benjiboi 19:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- That is an excellent idea if anyone can do it!! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- That would make the life preserver pretty tiny, though. I don't think it will work that well, but I can try tonight. --Thespian 20:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe make the helicopter image a wee bit bigger and tweak the life-preserver to pop more. Benjiboi 21:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Making the Helicopter bigger is actually going to worsen the problem. the issue is that barnstar (w/copter) is already bigger than most barnstars, and the barnstar is little. So making the copter bigger is not the right response; if anything, I would make it smaller or find a different copter for it. But you're still going to have a life preserver that's about 4 pixels high at that size, and there's not a lot you can do at that size with it to make it pop more; it's just Too Tiny. --Thespian 21:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- I prefer the helicopter one we have and it is just a barnstar so see what it looks like and we can tweak from there. If the helicopter can't get bigger then simply enlarge the star a bit. Benjiboi 22:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Another idea would be to maybe have just the life preserver as a "level 1" award for someone who rescues one article and the one with the helicopter and the life preserver as a "level 2" award for someone who has rescued multiple articles? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- That would be a keen idea. I can make the barnstars match, and then size will be less relevant, because anyone who rescues several articles will have seen the single one a time or two ;-) --Thespian 04:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am happy to see that nice response! I do think we should start giving these out somehow, as I've noticed some really commendable successes thus far. Although the following article does not have an ARS tag, I think Empty2005 might merit such recognition for this effort. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- That would be a keen idea. I can make the barnstars match, and then size will be less relevant, because anyone who rescues several articles will have seen the single one a time or two ;-) --Thespian 04:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Another idea would be to maybe have just the life preserver as a "level 1" award for someone who rescues one article and the one with the helicopter and the life preserver as a "level 2" award for someone who has rescued multiple articles? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is really OT, but I can't resist sharing the literal war story of a friend of mine, who retired from the Air Force as an E-8 parajumper, with every intention of getting his doctorate and teaching at the university level. Somehow, friends got him to first take "one more tour" in a protective detail in Iraq (mostly as a paramedic), and then, when he had taught for another semester, got him for one last one.
- He wasn't as lucky on this tour; I think it was suggestive when he said, very calmly, that he really appreciated how quickly the British got fighters and tanks to where they were ambushed. He brightened somewhat, and brought up the old saying "guns don't kill people. People kill people", and explained that his gun saved him. It wasn't that he used it, but he was wearing a M1911, in a shoulder holster, in an upside-down vehicle. A bullet smashed the pistol, but also kept it from going into his chest.
- I wonder if I should ask him about PJs and Barnstars? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Read this on Slashdot, relevant to the project
The comments by Slashdotters might be more interesting than the article: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/31/0328239 Ichormosquito 16:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, notability as we now define it will soon be pointless, when you will be able to dredge up anything everybody and his dog has ever said about anybody on the net. I think we must go from a quantitative (a.k.a the Hated Google Test) to a qualitative one, e.g. "how good an article could it possibly be, given we've got all the sources we could possibly have"?--victor falk 23:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Admissions to the ICU
Survivors can now be admitted to the ICU: Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit#Articles having survived Afd admitted by the Article Rescue Squadron
I think we need to discuss the practical details on how this should be done. To consider: Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit#To Admit an Article to the ICU and Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit#To Discharge an Article from the ICU. --victor falk 23:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
If one needs help
I am a member of this "squadron", but unfortunately I have very little time to browse regularly through AfD lists. I like to do 1-2 things at a time, not 100, so... If you need help, and see this, please leave me a note here. I can not promiss help within minutes, neither a wisard's stick, but I can be at your side and honestly help with all I can. :Dc76\talk 06:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Examples
I feel that this should be the best examples of ARS work. Articles such as Bawls where there still is serious issues remaining should perhaps not be included. At least not until/unless those concerns are dealt with. Taemyr (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Respectfully disagree. Although it would be useful to show how articles were saved and now they are GA or FA status, etc. this project is still quite new and that list remains one of the few records and possible the only record of our collective work. The implications for its use have ye to be realized. I do agree that it would be helpful to designate some as notable examples but unsure the best way to do that. Benjiboi 17:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- If Bawls is to be offered as an example it would be helpful to get a summary of what the rescuers did with it. Also an outline what the main issues were in the various AfDs, and if the repair work was able to deal with them. Finally, what was the clue (to the article rescuers) that this article in particular deserved their attention. I suppose it is too much work to do this for every item in the current list. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agree that's a lot more work than I'm interested in at the moment; also I might not have made clear but I think the project needs a running list (a sortable table might be nice) of all the articles we saved as well as some examples of ones pre-project. Frankly I would like to formally issue ARS Barnstars but we have no complete list or actual means of creating one as out tag is temporary. Benjiboi 17:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- If Bawls is to be offered as an example it would be helpful to get a summary of what the rescuers did with it. Also an outline what the main issues were in the various AfDs, and if the repair work was able to deal with them. Finally, what was the clue (to the article rescuers) that this article in particular deserved their attention. I suppose it is too much work to do this for every item in the current list. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- One of the problems, of course, is that factual error in articles, lack of proper sourcing, etc., is *not* theoretically grounds for AfD. What might be relevant is an *impossibility* of reliable sourcing, or a lack of evidence for notability. To rescue an article, then, it should be sufficient to show evidence for notability plus at least the possibility of reliable sourcing. (Articles on notable topics really should not be deleted, period, but they may be stubbed if no reliable sources justify more than that). So if it is Article Rescue that we focus on, this is quite a bit of a lesser task than truly cleaning up articles. But, in practice, of course, AfDs *do* consider article quality, a quality article is much more likely to survive AfD. What disturbs me, though, is that we can put effort into improving an article under the AfD gun, and it gets deleted. So I'd personally focus on simply doing and reporting the research necessary to establish notability and at least one reliable source, if possible. I do not see the Rescue Squadron as inclusionist except as in opposition to a certain improper kind of deletionism.--Abd (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Uhm. I though the purpose of ARS was to edit articles, rather than casting keep votes. Taemyr (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect that the Article Rescue Squadron is a net benefit overall but one cannot immediately get that impression from scanning down the list at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Examples. Purely to help save the idea from further criticism, it might be useful (though I'm not yet a volunteer for that) to offer a true success story, where the After is so much improved from the Before that even deletionists might feel that some good was done. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- [1] might be one such example, I found it via ARS, and it looked like a straight-up press release. I removed peacock, I added some references and sources, as did Foznez, and saved it from AfD. With [2], all I had to do was clean up some of the non-relevant silly references. Ronabop (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect that the Article Rescue Squadron is a net benefit overall but one cannot immediately get that impression from scanning down the list at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Examples. Purely to help save the idea from further criticism, it might be useful (though I'm not yet a volunteer for that) to offer a true success story, where the After is so much improved from the Before that even deletionists might feel that some good was done. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Uhm. I though the purpose of ARS was to edit articles, rather than casting keep votes. Taemyr (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- One of the problems, of course, is that factual error in articles, lack of proper sourcing, etc., is *not* theoretically grounds for AfD. What might be relevant is an *impossibility* of reliable sourcing, or a lack of evidence for notability. To rescue an article, then, it should be sufficient to show evidence for notability plus at least the possibility of reliable sourcing. (Articles on notable topics really should not be deleted, period, but they may be stubbed if no reliable sources justify more than that). So if it is Article Rescue that we focus on, this is quite a bit of a lesser task than truly cleaning up articles. But, in practice, of course, AfDs *do* consider article quality, a quality article is much more likely to survive AfD. What disturbs me, though, is that we can put effort into improving an article under the AfD gun, and it gets deleted. So I'd personally focus on simply doing and reporting the research necessary to establish notability and at least one reliable source, if possible. I do not see the Rescue Squadron as inclusionist except as in opposition to a certain improper kind of deletionism.--Abd (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- speaking as an individual, I doubt that anything I have done here has turned anything into a GA, and that is not my mission. Rather, I want to improve articles just enough to save them from deletion s that others can work on them further.I limit my goal this way because there are so many threatened articles--and so many unacceptable articles generally--that it's all i can do to do the minimum rescue on a small percentage of them. Of articles at AfD, many are hopeless--the topics will never be encyclopedic or the articles are in other ways not worth saving. But there are dozens deleted every day that could have been saved, if anyone had been willing to work on it. But there are so few of us, and it is so much easier to delete than to save. I can write a deletion rationale in about 60 seconds; it take perhaps 60 minutes for me to improve even minimally an article of the sort I work on when it appears there. (And many of the most frequently threatened ones, involving popular culture where so many of the references are non-obvious, can take maybe ten times that to do adequately, even in a very good physical library.) There would have to be 50 times as many people actually working on this as there are people nominating for deletion to provide a balance--that's about 50 times more than at present. So I rescue one or two a week; if I did nothing much else, I could perhaps do one or two a day. Ed, this is ARS, not GA. Emphasis on rescue--just the immediate job of keeping them alive till we get can them suitable for more definitive editing. DGG
- To clarify, we are not about casting keep votes. ARS is specifically addressing the AfD process, other projects and tags address other clean-up situations. There is a big difference about how the AfD process does work and how various people think it should work, in short, ARS members have to become AfD specialists and quickly determine what needs to address on an article and deal with them as efficiently as possible. Our wok might address other issues but might be as simple as recruiting an expert on the subject from an appropriate project. I do totally agree that a cynic's gallery certainly could be of use and see that as easily implementable, such a section would help demonstrate what is possible and show examples of unquestionably taking something easily seen as AfD-able and what is possible. Personally, I think Slut night, Fingerboard (skateboard), Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) and Fruit (slang) would be good additions. Benjiboi 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I can buy that. Although in the case of Bawls the fact that the article reads like an advert was mentioned during the AfD process. This is not my point however. My point is that by putting up a list of selected examples you give the impression that the current articles are articles that ARS have reason to be proud of. I am not suggesting that the threshold of inclusion should be GA or FA, but perhaps you should avoid putting forth articles that are blatantly transgression of editing policies or guidelines. Taemyr (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I see more of what you mean. To me, in addition to having an all-star gallery of sorts, I think adding a statement as part of the intro that explains that (for those who didn't get the memo) that these articles were saved but certainly could still be improved as all articles on wikipedia are constantly being edited (and hopefully improved). Benjiboi 18:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I can buy that. Although in the case of Bawls the fact that the article reads like an advert was mentioned during the AfD process. This is not my point however. My point is that by putting up a list of selected examples you give the impression that the current articles are articles that ARS have reason to be proud of. I am not suggesting that the threshold of inclusion should be GA or FA, but perhaps you should avoid putting forth articles that are blatantly transgression of editing policies or guidelines. Taemyr (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Taemyr. ARS is for wild-eyed inclusionists only. You seem to be of the moderate kind. Zenwhat (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Zenwhat, I'm puzzled by what you hope to accomplish by coming to a project you apparently don't approve of and engaging in baiting-like edits. Please consider that your efforts might be better put to use elsewhere and your disparaging characterizations of the many members of this project are generally not appreciated. Benjiboi 22:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
ResolvedWhy isn't this category automatically sorted alphabetically? It seems to have something to do with the way {{rescue}} works, but I tried removing a pipe character from where Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics appears in the template and it didn't have any apparent effect. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I did some experiments, by substituting 'rescue' in a dummy article and starting to remove characters from the expansion. It did not lead to any enlightenment. Just removing the 'ambox' from the template made no difference. Adding {{DEFAULTSORT:A}} to an article should force it to sort under 'A' in any normal category, but it doesn't change its position in the 'rescue' listing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I took a look at the template source, and see:
- [[Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics| ]]
- Could it be that the { pipe char followed by a blank } in that cause all articles to be categorized with a blank or a null as the optionally-specifiable sort key? As I read Help:Category, that might be the case. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I edited the {{rescue}} template to remove the pipe character and the blank. The sort order looks OK to me now; see what you think. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I took a look at the template source, and see:
- Excellent - thank you for sorting it out! Benjiboi 08:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)