Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 59

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61

Klavier Music Productions

Resolved
 – Userfied to User:UnicornTapestry/WiP/Klavier Music Productions Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm stunned. I just spent a couple of hours creating an article with references and links to Klavier Music Productions, a classical music record company in Boca Raton, Florida. The company is nearly a quarter of a century old and its record label is referred to many times in Wikipedia. With every teenager with a band showing up on Wikipedia, one would think a quarter-of-a-century old classical music company should be represented too, but apparently not.

I'd clearly flagged it with an increation template, and yet in the midst of creating the article, one administrator flagged it (claiming it was promotion, which it clearly was not) with a speedy delete and another shortly deleted it. I doubt either bothered to read the article. Unfortunately, I can't show you the article because they also deleted it from my WiP/sandbox!

Another administrator left me an apologetic note and advised me to include the information on the parent company's page, which isn't realistic since the parent company isn't a record company. Also I feel my reputation is involved and don't want the imputation of creating bogus articles.

How can I take this to arbitration? I believe the article is valuable (as is my time) and I think it's worth fighting for. I also want to ask overly enthusiastic admins to take the time to actually look at what they're deleting. Please advise. Thank you.

--Unicorn Tapestry {say} 00:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Erasing it in your sandbox even is going a bit far. Anyway, I see them mentioned plenty of times at Allmusic.com confirming they have published notable music. Some of the music that is mentioned with their name is found in the credits of PBS documentary [1] and a soundtrack for a film.[2] While common sense would be to judge a publishing company's notability by how many notable bands they have published, and not whether or not whoever is in charge was able to bribe or charm someone to interview them about their company, whether the article would survive an AFD or not is dependent entirely on the random people that show up and the opinions and mood of the closing administrator. Unless you find some coverage of the company itself, probably no reason to bother creating the article again. Dream Focus 00:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Allmusic is definitely a reliable source - it's impossible to just put changes on it without an independent review of the content, and several of the reviewers, such as Ritchie Unterberger are notable music journalists in their own right. You should go to WP:REFUND and request userfication. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for help from AfC

Not sure if this is the right address - but I happened to see this:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Feminism#Request_for_help_from_AfC where the issue seems to be one of sourcing. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Emerging discussion re Draft: namespace

Please see and join the emerging discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Deletion_and_Draft: regarding part of the potential usage of the Draft: namespace. Fiddle Faddle 19:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

User:Timtrent(talk) 19:35, 18 December 2013‎ (UTC)

@Timtrent: Just wondering why you left this empty? Thanks in advance. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I blame mediawiki software. I wasn't aware I had. Fiddle Faddle 00:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Page with record number of nomination for deletion

Just wondering if this information is available anywhere on Wikipedia? Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This recently came up. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (7th nomination) Notice it ended with an overwhelming keep. Most of the article was still deleted anyway by constant arguing and editing of a couple of determined editors, but whatever. There is also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (7th nomination). Dream Focus 01:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I found an article which has been to AFD 22 times. [3] That's probably the record. Just use Wikipedia's search for "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion" and then "(22nd nomination)". Change it to 23rd, and so on, to search for higher up ones. Dream Focus 01:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The search tab at the top of AFDS no longer includes Google news!

Go to any AFD and check the top search thing. (Find sources: Google, Google books, Google scholar, JSTOR, and free images). Anyone know why it was changed and where to discuss it at? Dream Focus 20:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 44#Google news archive search?. Deor (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Closing AI

Hi, There is an RFC at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/RfC to close down Incubator to close down the Article Incubator. Please join the discussion there. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

William McLean (military officer)

Hi all, William McLean (military officer) is up at wp:AfD. I don't know much about the topic, but am wondering how a person in charge of 50,000 others is not notable? Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikiproject proposal

I would like to invite this group to the discussion Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Neutral Editors.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles living on borrowed time

Dear rescuers: Now that the deletion at AfC of submissions and drafts that have not been edited for six months under db-g13 is in full swing, some of the editors there have been picking out ones on likely notable topics and postponing deletion for six months by adding the {{AfC postpone G13}} template. This is only a temporary reprieve; we are hoping that the articles will be improved and added to mainspace. To see the ones that have been tagged so far, see this list. To check through the old drafts yourself, visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/G13 rescue. If you know of any editors who might be willing to work on this I hope you will pass along the information Thanks in advance for any help that you can provide. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

wow that is quite the list. Igottheconch (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Update Those working on the huge backlog of over 50,000 abandoned Afc submissions have finally reached the bottom of the queue this week. About 90% of the old submissions have been deleted, and quite a few new articles have been created.

  • The submisssions that have been tagged for another look can be found HERE. Feel free to work on anything that you feel is worthwhile.
  • Any newly db-g13 eligible ones (which have at most one month to live) can be found HERE. About 100 new ones are added each day, and a similar number deleted after having been on the list for a month or so. Feel free to tag ones that you feel are valuable with {{AfC postpone G13}}, which gives them another six months, or to nominate for deletion any copyvios, hoaxes, attack pages, etc. There are often copy-paste remnants which need history merges as well.

Tnanks in advance for any help you can provide. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikiproject Report

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on the Article Rescue Squadron for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day! buffbills7701 13:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Dear Article Rescue Squadron: Buffbills has left a message on my talk page as well about this. I've been mainly involved in improving articles found in the G13-eligible queue, which hasn't been coordinated through this Wikiproject. I'm not sure it's something that should be included in an article about the Article Rescue Squadron. Maybe it's a separate only peripherally related topic which should be in another article at another time. Opinions? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Mercy for Animals

I just found this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mercy_for_Animals&oldid=311581404 Zeddocument (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you thinkof creating a offline wikipeida cite with all stupid terrible deletions?

235,617 articles so far copied over from Wikipedia. There is also http://annex.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page but it only has 4,569 articles. You can also create a wikia for whatever subject you want, and export Wikipedia articles there using Special:Export. I was irritated by the constant mindless deletion of manga and anime articles years ago, there a massive purge going on, so I created http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page and just copied over every article there was, there 13,915 there now, and then did a full history export for any I saw up for deletion. I did this with other wikias I created as well. Rather simple to do. Dream Focus 17:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Google newspaper instead of Google news in AFD header

Someone mentioned Google now has a newspaper search, so I suggested it at the find sources template, in the section where it was discussed to remove the link to Google news when it stopped working right. Template_talk:Find_sources#Google_News_search_is_completely_useless I contacted the guy who removed it, User_talk:Mr._Stradivarius#Google_newspapers, who suggested I ask around and get more input. So, please look at that, and discuss it there. Any newspaper search is better than nothing. Dream Focus 20:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

An article explaining a cutting edge technology up for deletion

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Roadways

I can't believe this was nominated. Wholesomegood (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Banc De Binary

Very strange how this protected AfD is being, er, "protected". I asked for your template to be posted atop it and was denied because there is no consensus. Really? Can anyone let me know whether you'd like to contribute there to consensus that the article should be listed for rescue? Thank you. Much more but that's what applies. In the meantime it seems that posting your template on the talk page is either good IAR or not actually ignoring any rule. Okteriel (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion notice

A discussion is occurring at Template talk:Find sources regarding updating the Find sources template with links to the Google News and Google newspapers searches. Interested editors are invited to contribute to the discussion. The discussion is located here. NorthAmerica1000 08:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Google news is working again. So the guy who removed it can just put that back in. I did mention the Google newspaper a few sections above this, and just above where you created that new section on his page. He said on his talk page back then [4] to get more people to notice and discuss it. Dream Focus 08:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Free subscriptions to journal and source websites

Free access subscriptions to high quality paywalled journals, newspaper archives, and online reference works are presently available for Wikipedia editors. For more information, see Wikipedia:TWL/Journals. NorthAmerica1000 11:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm so glad I can get my Highbeam account back. Without it, referencing articles was just so much more difficult than it was before. Everyone should sign up for that who wants to rescue articles. Dream Focus 15:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

maintaining of articles

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 166#maintaining means deleting?! (Idot (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC))

After years of arguing that point, I don't see any reason to keep doing it. Some misguided people believe they are somehow helping the encyclopedia by removing articles from it. If its not something you are interested in, you wouldn't ever find your way to it unless you went looking for it. But whatever. Jimbo Wales created Wikia and a massive number of Wikipedia articles got deleted here, and transwikied or recreated over there, allowing him to make a lot of money. Dream Focus 15:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for Feedback on grant proposal for notability detection

Hi, I've posted a grant proposal for an IEG for using machine learning to determine the notability of articles. I thought it might be of interest to you because one of the problems we're trying to solve with this is that patrollers and reviewers often delete or reject articles or AfC drafts whose topics are notable, but the articles themselves don't meet some standard that they've created. We want to be able to determine notability of the topic independent of the quality of the article, and hopefully convince those vetting the articles to take a second look rather than just deleting. We also can potentially create a tool that you can use to find notable articles in danger of being deleted that can use some fixing up. I'm sure you'll have plenty of ideas about what things to look at that are good signals of notability, and also important caveats to keep in mind. Please come on over to IEG proposal and let us know what you think! Thanks, Bluma.Gelley (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Help me create a Request for Comment asking that Jimmy Wales step down

Active editors continue to drop on wikipedia Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia#Criticism
The singularity is not near: slowing growth of Wikipedia
The rate of reverts-per-edits (or new contributions rejected) and the number of pages protected has kept increasing.

The greater resistance towards new content has made it more costly for editors, especially occasional editors, to make contribution. We argue that this may have contributed, with other factors, to the slowdown in the growth of Wikipedia.[5]

I want to create a request for comment with some long term members of the Article Rescue Squadron.

This request for comment would argue that the only way to reverse the negative trend of deleting other editors good faith edits would be for Jimmy Wales to step down.

Please e-mail me if you are interested. Walterruss (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


Note:

Update: the RFC on Jimbo's page has been closed.

(sic) "This Rfc has been closed due to the general consensus that if the users had the authority to make such a decision (and we do not), then we would decide that Jimbo Wales should keep his job as long as he is possibly able and willing. This discussion was also closed due to the fact that the Rfc proposer claimed to have registered as a new user for the first time only three hours prior to making this rather silly suggestion here. Scott P. (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)"

IE: You don't tug on Superman's cape. You don't spit into the wind. You don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger. And you don't mess around with Jim. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:SPA account User:Walterruss's emailing editors (as he did me) and posting the same RFC at different locations is forum shopping that could be seen as disruptive and possibly deserving of a block (not that it would prevent the return of anyone so determined).
Just as was done elsewhere, this should be closed here as well. We edit at Jimbo's sufferance. He does not do so at ours. Mr. Wales voluntarily resigning is unlikely to happen and he will not be forced to leave by two or three or even four disgruntled voices out of the 22 million+ user accounts. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Sorry, but I didn't clearly understand: What exactly Walterruss wants from Jimbo? and how it could help the situation? (Idot (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC))

note now I looked at a dictionary what the phrasal verb "step down" means... (Idot (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC))

the only way to reverse the negative trend of deleting other editors good faith edits would be for Jimmy Wales to step down... Walterruss

there is no Jimbo in Russian Wikipedia, however Deletists in Russian Wikipedia MUCH STRONGER than in English Wikipedia, so your's suggestion will make situation much worsen (Idot (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC))

"Gutting" an article during deletion discussion

I've created an essay on Gutting an article during deletion discussion.

You may find it interesting reading at: User:Cirt/Gutting.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

hi cirt! nice job!
There's a lot of IMHO improper blanking going on in this article: List of British mobsters - would appreciate a second opinion. Artw (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletions_and_editor_retention

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Deletions_and_editor_retention

If deleted see this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thewhitebox#RFC

Thewhitebox (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Full text:

Active editors continue to drop on wikipedia Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia#Criticism

Studies show, editing on wikipedia is stagnating. I have been an editor off and on wikipedia for 12 years. Wikipedia has become less and less welcoming for new editors because of more and more deletion and speed deletion rules. There is a very negative company culture about new edits here on wikipedia. Editors who encourage deletion of good faith edits are rewarded, editors who fight against this trend are banned or leave in frustration.

  1. I remember when established editors posed as new editors, and almost everyone of their new pages were deleted. The larger community was infuriated, not by how new editors were shown to be treated, but that established editors would pose as new editors. I know there is a 80% chance that my article will be deleted within one hour of it being created. If I have no references, it is within 5 minutes.
  2. I remember how Jimmy Wales blessed the wide spread deletion of hundreds of bibliography articles with no notice, writing on the editors talk page what a wonderful job he did.
  3. I remember the secret offline collusion in the case - twenty or so editors were working together to disrupt wikipeda and get tens of thousands of articles deleted. Any other time the editors would be banned, but instead any editors who mentioned the case were warned.
  4. I remember the dozens of articles from mainstream media that complained how an incredibly notable article was deleted often within 5 minutes.
  5. I remember the episode wars over television shows. In which editors wanted to delete thousands of pages on all television series.
  6. I remember how I quit uploading non-copyrighted images from the 1890s because they were always deleted in mass, even when I put the right tags on them.
  7. I have been appalled at many of the really mean editors who have become administrators and the arbcoms. The arbcoms get Jimmy's blessing.
  8. I have been disgusted at how established editors treat other new editors, describing their new article monitoring as "garbage men" stopping "garbage"
  9. I am shocked that every time I see an old editors page from 2006 or before, who really fought for treating editors nicely, he has been banned or left in disgust. Every time.
  10. There is a new trend the last couple of years. I am appalled at extremely ignorant editors deleting whole sections of articles citing copyright violations. They have absolutely no understanding of copyright. Fair use is ignored and deletion is emphasized.

Editors, especially new editors, are consistently treated like shit here by a like minded group of editors.

Sadly I see only one solution

I have come to one sad conclusion: That Jimmy Wales, the founder of this site, is the person most responsible for this trend. He is most responsbile for this site's negative company culture. I believe that it is in the best interest of the long term future of Wikipedia that Jimmy Wales step down. I beleive wikipedia needs a new company culture that is more inclusive and kind.

If you have a better idea how to change this trend, something that has never been tried before, I would love to hear it.

Thoughts?

Studies that show why Wikipedia editing is stagnating
The singularity is not near: slowing growth of Wikipedia
The rate of reverts-per-edits (or new contributions rejected) and the number of pages protected has kept increasing.

The greater resistance towards new content has made it more costly for editors, especially occasional editors, to make contribution. We argue that this may have contributed, with other factors, to the slowdown in the growth of Wikipedia.[6]

The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia’s Reaction to Popularity Is Causing Its Decline
University of Minnesota research finds the restrictiveness of the encyclopedia’s primary quality control mechanism against contributions made by newcomers and the algorithmic tools commonly used to reject contributions as key causes of the decrease in newcomer retention. The community’s formal mechanisms to create uniform entries are also shown to have fortified its entries against changes—especially when those changes are proposed by newer editors. As a result, Wikipedia is having greater difficulty in retaining new volunteer editors.

"Wikipedia has changed from the encyclopedia that anyone can edit to the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes himself or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection, and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit"[7]

Wikia6969 (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Saving drafts

Dear Article Rescue folks: I'm sure that you are all aware of the new Draft space, and the db-g13 deletion category which affects drafts which aren't being improved and so are considered "abandoned". The new space has helped with one problem, because at least these drafts aren't deleted within minutes, but many notable topics aren't making it through the process and into mainspace because there is a shortage of experienced editors willing to make the necessary improvements (such as de-fluffing and adding references) so that when moved the new articles will be safe from AfD. Here is a LIST of abandoned drafts that were either declined at AfC or their editors lost interest before submitting. I have selected these from the db-g13 eligible queue as ones which likely can be made into articles. About 550 other titles are no longer on this list because they have "graduated" and are now in the encyclopedia (THESE ONES, and you can see that they are all bluelinks). New drafts are being added to the list as they become eligible for deletion. I would appreciate any help your members here may wish to give in improving these drafts so that they can be made into articles. As far as I know, there are only three editors working regularly on this (and the other two have their own separate lists), so you can see that help is badly needed. Thanks in advance for any you improve or "rescue". —Anne Delong (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The Core Contest

The The Core Contest is a thirty-day contest focusing on improving Wikipedia's most important and most viewed articles. Prizes in the form of electronic store vouchers will be awarded.

The next (6th) running will be from 0.01 hrs UTC March 1 to 23.59 hrs UTC March 31 2015... so start your engines....
– NORTH AMERICA1000 03:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Recruiting volunteers for notability hand-coding

Either trolling or competence issue. There's nothing to do here.

edit war at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list

I am attempting to overhaul the page, and many non-Article squadron editors are attempting to stop me from editing the page, despite the {{underconstruction}} template.

See: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Headtransplant_reported_by_User:ToonLucas22_.28Result:_.29

Headtransplant (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to state some things:
  1. I was just wandering around in Huggle, then I found out about this. Given all the reverts, I decided to report to AN3.
  2. {{underconstruction}} is not an excuse for making changes without consensus.
  3. I'm nominating {{Article_Rescue_Squadron_New_article}} for deletion, since its only being used for the change without consensus.
Hope this clears things up. --TL22 (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Look, your edit warring behavior is the reason why ARS exists. You now put my template up for deletion: Template:Article Rescue Squadron New article. Go edit war somewhere and take your negative emotions somewhere else.
Too many editors use wikipedia as a catharsis for their negative emotions, do you? Headtransplant (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The reason why ARS exists is to improve articles nominated for deletion to avoid their deletion, not because of "edit warring". --TL22 (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Your behavior is abhorrent.
Instead of civil dialogue, you treat wikipedia like an American Football game.
You ignore {{underconstruction}} tempaltes when I am trying to boldly edit Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list.
I argue your 3RR claim.
So you then put my template up for deletion in retribution.
You now are calling for me to be indefinitely blocked.
Again, this behavior is the reason why WP:ARS exists.
Your behavior is the reason why new editor edits is plummeting.
But what do i know, my comments are "worthless"?
Headtransplant (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Your arguments have became ad nauseam. I'm not gonna bother you anymore. --TL22 (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Then:
  1. revert the deletion.
  2. Call for the template to be saved.
  3. Also retract the call for me to be indefinitely blocked.
Guaranteed you will stop arguing here, but you will continue on other pages.
Just because you passive aggressively hide your bad behavior behind your knowledge of Wikipedia acronyms does not make your behavior any less abhorrent. ::::::Headtransplant (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
yes, I was right, you immediately went to the 3RR page and defended the other 3RR violators behavior. Headtransplant (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Template for deletion

User:ToonLucas22 reported me to 3RR for attempting to boldly revise one of the article rescue squadron pages. [above]

He then put my template up for deletion: Template:Article Rescue Squadron New article.

Please consider reviewing the nomination. Thank you. Headtransplant (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Coding: [8]

Headtransplant (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

See my statement above. --TL22 (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Awards and notability

RFC here: [9]

Concerns if the notability guidelines should be used to determine if a film award can be included in an article. For example if Ben Affleck won an award that doesn't have a Wikipedia article, that award would not be mentioned in his biography. More details and arguments in the RFC. Editors have said they hope to apply this to all awards eventually not just film awards so comics, books, etc.. would not be able to mention they won certain awards based on notability. This also has potential consequences for AfD since awards are often used to build a case for notability. -- GreenC 13:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking for Volunteers to help Notability Detection project

We're building a tool to help article creators and patrollers make better decisions, and we need your help! We're looking for volunteers to decide if article topics are notable or not. We'll use these decisions to train an automated classifier that will score new articles based on how notable it thinks they're likely to be.

If you're interested, please sign up here. We'll let you know as soon as we're ready for you to start. Comments and suggestions are very welcome! Bluma.Gelley (talk) 07:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

saving ALL articles and alerting all editors who have their work deleted

A bot could easily be created which:

1) saves all articles created within one minute of creation
2) saving those articles on an offwiki site.
3) another bot would alert all editors whose articles are put up for deletion or speedy deletion about a secondary site.

This site would be strongly critical of the deletion mentality of top editors here on wikipedia. Advocating for radical change in volunteer leadership. Headtransplant (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Does http://speedydeletion.wikia.com meet the three points talked about above?
Does a bot save every article?
Headtransplant (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/We_are_not_a_wikipedia_editing_agency
Added:
For help in getting your article back on wikipedia, post a request on the Article Request Squadron talk page.
Headtransplant (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
We save articles, don't try to rebuild already deleted ones. Dream Focus 03:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Yup. And for the record, there isn't an icecream's chance in hell that any bot notifying people about deleted articles being saved to another site would ever get approval, for more reasons than I care to count. If the people behind speedydeletion.wikia want to risk getting sued for copyright violations, libel, and all the other reasons we can't keep many of the articles deleted, it is their business - but we certainly aren't going to assist them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

RE: http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/

Hello, http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/We_are_not_a_wikipedia_editing_agency was reverted by you dreamf.

the page was then protected.

Was it protected by you?

If so, can you include a link to WP:ARS? Any publicity is good publicity! Headtransplant (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the owner of the site protected the page. H4ck3rm1k3 I will talk to him. Headtransplant (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • You were told that's not what we do. Someone else removed the nonsense you posted, but didn't restore the page to its previous bit. I went ahead and did that, since you erased a lot of valid information there. You then reverted me, and someone did a page protection. Dream Focus 04:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Rescued article -- then to FA or GA

Have you helped take an article from Articles for deletion to Featured Article or Good Article quality ?

show your Rescue Squadron pride with

  • {{User AFD to FA|n}}

(where n is the number of articles you've helped rescue and take to Featured Article quality)

This user has successfully taken n articles from deletion discussion at Articles for Deletion — to Featured Article quality.

 – There's an automatically-generated list of members using this banner here.



  • {{User AFD to GA|n}}

(where n is the number of articles you've helped rescue and take to Good Article quality)

This user has successfully taken n articles from deletion discussion at Articles for Deletion — to Good Article quality.

 – There's an automatically-generated list of members using this banner here.



Check out these two new userboxes I've added, above. — Cirt (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion to Quality Award

I've created the WP:Deletion to Quality Award.

This recognizes editors who've taken a page previously considered for deletion — to Featured Article or Good Article quality.

The award is inspired by the Wikipedia:Million Award, the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement.

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Problems with good faith

Hi, I have been looking at the Talk regarding the deletion of the following page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idriss_Aberkane. I have already mentioned in the same discussion on the French page that I had noticed problems regarding the 'good faith', with obvious lies in the comments, an intent of diffamation and the fact that most of the comments were provided by a network of related people. The deletion has been the object of an intense lobbying on Wiki but also on social networks such as Twitter. Now, the talk is going ont in the English Page. What is the right thing to do regarding that? Citizenam103.27.227.67 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Participants here have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

MFD

It appears that there has been a bunch of drafts sent to WP:MFD recently, and my spot-check suggests that the noms are interpreting "no reliable sources have already been typed into the draft" as evidence that no reliable sources have ever been published. Some of the folks here might want to drop by and see if there's anything obviously notable in the list.

There is a related conversation at WT:N about whether userspace pages need to be notable, and a sprawling mess at WT:MFD about whether poorly attended MFDs need to be mindlessly re-listed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia term "Navel-gazing" usage in deletion debates

I've created an essay page on usage of the term "Navel-gazing" in deletion debates on Wikipedia.

Essay at: WP:Navel-gazing.

Feedback would be appreciated on the talk page, at Wikipedia talk:Navel-gazing.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Creation of article Let's Marry or Let's Get Married

I would appreciate any assistance I can have with creating the Russian article "Let's Marry" and/or "Let's Get Married". Moscowamerican (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi please help with [File:Давай поженимся 2013.jpg]] thank you.

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Any assistance please?

The Interloper: Lee Harvey Oswald Inside the Soviet Union it is being put up for speedy deletion for copyright violations. Moscowamerican (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

New article improvement drives

Check out the following new article improvement drives and contests. North America1000 11:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of this project

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Propose marking Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron as historical. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Elections for New Page Patrol/Review coordinators.

The election now open for voters. Voting has now begun for two NPP/NPR coordinators and will remain open until 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. All registered, confirmed editors are welcome to vote. Please vote HERE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Pages with neutrality problems

Just a note: this essay may be related in scope. Thank you, — PaleoNeonate — 23:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:AALERTS need some help on Community Wishlist Survey

Many of you use Article Alerts to get notified of discussions (PRODs and AfD in particular). However, due to our limit resources (one bot coder), not a whole lot of work can be done on Article Alerts to expand and maintain the bot. If the coder gets run over by a bus, then it's quite possible this tool would become unavailable in the future.

There's currently a proposal on the Community Wishlist Survey for the WMF to take over the project, and make it both more robust / less likely to crash / have better support for new features. But one of the main things is that with a full team behind Article Alerts, this could also be ported to other languages!

So if you make use of Article Alerts and want to keep using it and see it ported to other languages, please go and support the proposal. And advertise it to the other rescue projects in other languages too to let them know this exists, otherwise they might miss out on this feature! Thanks in advance! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hyphen vs. dash

In the title Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list, shouldn't the hyphen be an en dash per MOS:DASH? In other words, shouldn't the title be Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list? It seems that the title with the dash is on the title blacklist, but I don't understand why. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

This is so utterly unimportant I wouldn’t expect a lot of feedback on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
It has been moved, after I submitted a request using WP:RMTR. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Doctor Mew

did anyone want to help rescue this article Doctor Mew?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 02:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You posted on the wrong page so no one noticed. Some coverage about this [10] but probably nothing that couldn't just be included at Jenny Parks. Dream Focus 20:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Accusations of canvassing placed in code of conduct template

An editor is determined to falsely accuse of us of canvassing at various places, even ranting in an AFD just now[11]. Despite not being a member of this wikiproject, he wishes to add in a bit that seems rather WP:POINTY to our code of conduct template. [12] He posted on the talk page of someone else to ask them to keep reverting me when I reverted him [13] and that person did so. Please give your opinions on this. I post here since no one looks at the rest of the wikiproject pages. Dream Focus 19:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a quote of the accusation that has been "placed in code of conduct template". If you cannot provide a quote of the accusation please redact accordingly. (In any case, diff.) Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Anyone can click on the link I provided. You just reverted my removal of it after he posted on your talk page asking you to help him keep it there. Dream Focus 19:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Please hear the question I have asked -- I asked you to provide a quote of an accusation being placed into the template - in other words, please quote the accusation that has been placed in the template. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog: It's useless asking DF to retract baseless accusations of misbehaviour. I've done so four or five times, and I've learned that the most one can hope for is "I never made such an accusation; I won't strike anything". The same goes for asking him to recognize his content errors: "novel is a synonym for book", "If it didn't happen, then it's fiction", etc. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't have to say those exact words, the meaning is obvious. It wouldn't be put there unless the person believed we were canvassing, they saying they thought we were already, and thus put that there without consensus and asked on a talk page for the rest of you guys to watch it so you could revert us trying to revert it. Now how about answering my question on why this Wikiproject should be required to do something others are not. Dream Focus 04:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Jytdog should please stop wasting their time editing-warring over the project template. That template has no particular force because it's not policy; it's just an essay. Their opinion on what it should say lacks consensus and they have no mandate to impose rules on a project that they do not seem participate in. Andrew D. (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
    • fwiw the misrepresentation in the OP, along with the edit warring, is probably actionable at ANI. I am going to start looking at GANG/votestacking behavior by members of this project; the edit to the guidelines was an effort to help remind folks what they should do and should not do. If (if!) there is a pattern of GANG/votestacking at AfDs I will be taking action on that. Hopefully it won't come to that and people will remember what they should and should not do. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
    You believe its edit warring for two people who are in the project to revert two people who aren't, for adding in something that did not have consensus to be added. You seem to be the one edit warring, not us. Dream Focus 20:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
You are going to leave the misrepresentation in the header and first sentence; I gave you plenty of ROPE; so be it. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • {edit conflict} Note that it reads: Do not violate the policy on canvassing. Its not a policy though. The other part of it reads: If you comment in a deletion discussion after seeing a notice about it here, you should disclose that you came to the discussion from here. That's nonsense since no editors from any other wikiprojects are required to do that. The instructions for adding something to the rescue list clearly state to add the standard wikiproject notification in the AFD already, you seeing that above the list of AFDs right now. But you can't tell expect every single editor to say how they found out the AFD they are participating in, unless there is a rule that everyone does it, not just a single wikiproject. Dream Focus 21:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
There is no accusation there. That is a reasonable point about the guideline. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
fixed the guideline thing. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Nobody notified me of this discussion, even though it appears to be about me. No, I am not "ranting". And no, I did not accuse anyone in that edit. I spelled out correct practice, so anyone who perceives it as an accusation may perhaps have a guilty conscience. It simply describes the right thing to do, so no one should have a problem with it. In fact, the Rescue List page already says, in its instructions, "You should disclose in a deletion discussion that a post has been made at the rescue list." That was there before I got here, so I did not really even add anything new. I do not need to be a member of this project to make that edit, and in fact it's not true that no other project has to do it. Every project is obligated to follow the canvassing guideline, and AfD discussions are full of notices about where the discussion has been listed. That's done because editors should know how users came to the discussion. Thanks for correcting the wording about "policy". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • To help understand this case and best practise, perhaps Tryptofish can explain how they came to attend the 3 separate AfDs about Korean tourism during February. The only other AfD they attended during that month was for Russia Row. I understand how that came about (via Trump Street at DYK, right?) but the Korean cases seem less clear. My impression is that this was due to a posting at the CoI noticeboard or perhaps some related fuss at ANI? Myself, I consider every article deletion discussion by skimming through the daily lists for AfD and PROD. I don't usually bother with RfD, CfD or FFD – life's too short. And I don't bother with most of the articles either – they are mostly junk. What I'm interested in and looking for are the cases which have some merit and seem worth saving. Of course, in every such case, there's a nominator who doesn't like having their deletion proposal opposed but so it goes. Andrew D. (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the last sentence: Not necessarily. Most AFDs I have opened, I didn't really have a strong dog in the fight one way or the other; what I "don't like" about comments like the kind that have recently been coming from Andrew and Dream are that they show an at-best superficial understanding of our inclusion criteria, and often misrepresent sources as being either independent of the subject or providing in-depth coverage. Auto-opposing AFDs based on principal and misrepresentation of sources is a problem regardless of whether the articles in question should actually be deleted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I saw this, and it struck me as interesting enough to look into. It's as simple as that. I've been very active in discussions at WT:COI and WT:PAID (and related discussions at WT:HA), so the three AfDs looked interesting to me. Nobody asked me to do it, and I did not see any request for editors to do it. (You mentioned FFD; I wrote most of WP:AAFFD.) That's good that you look at the daily lists for AfD. If you look daily, or close to daily, you would have seen the YPT AfD in late February, or after any of the subsequent re-listings of it. But you began to participate in it a short time after the posting a few days ago on the Rescue List page, so I assume that you came from that listing rather than from the daily lists. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I want to add that I think that the purpose of this project is a very good one: it's good to improve pages that would otherwise fall by the wayside. I don't want anyone here to think otherwise. I do not regard myself as either a deletionist or an inclusionist. So I'm not "out to get", as it were, this project. I'm deeply troubled by what I have seen at the YPT AfD, but that is about what a small number of editors have done, not about this project taken as a whole. And as I said, the edit to the template was not an accusation, unless someone reads something into it that isn't there. It simply made explicit something that everyone should regard as community norms, and something that was already mentioned in the Rescue List instructions. The hair-trigger response here strikes me as an overreaction. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
What at the YPT AfD were you troubled by? Two of the three people that showed up from the listing here dared to disagree with you, so you have to come here and add in nonsense telling people they should do something no other wikiproject is required to do. I'm removing your addition, please don't try to add it back in without consensus. Dream Focus 02:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
@Dream Focus: Do you have evidence that Tryptofish and Jytdog are either the same person or are coordinating with each other off-wiki? You keep getting the two of them mixed up: the above is apparently a response to Tryptofish, but it was Jytdog who "c[a]me here and add in nonsense". I've seen editors blocked in the past for these kind of "stealth" sockpuppet accusations where one user's actions are repeatedly and baselessly attributed to another. Please strike all your equations of User:Jytdog with User:Tryptofish and vice versa, or you will be reported on ANI -- edit-warring, copyvio, hounding, and other personal attacks aside. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
No I did not. Tryptofish commented at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Young_Pioneer_Tours, that what I was referring to. Dream Focus 04:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
@Dream Focus: This is exactly what I told Jytdog above about your repeated refusal to withdraw personal accusations, instead insisting you never made them. You clearly accused Tryptofish in the above post of editing the template (com[ing] here and add in nonsense telling people they should do something no other wikiproject is required to do), and earlier either accused Jytdog of making a comment on the AFD that was actually written by Tryptofish or accused Tryptofish of edit-warring over the template. Please acknowledge and withdraw your bad-faith accusation now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
[14] Tryptofish is the one that added it with the edit summary of (This is important, to prevent WP:CANVASS violations.) He added in Do not violate the policy on canvassing. If you comment in a deletion discussion after seeing a notice about it here, you should disclose that you came to the discussion from here. Why should everyone who goes to a discussion tell people they went there after seeing it listed here? No other Wikiproject does that. Dream Focus 04:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Because other WikiProjects have a vested interest in the content of articles, rather than simply a vested interest in not seeing them deleted regardless of their content. The problem with ARS's recent activity is that editors from this project who have no knowledge of the topic areas in question are showing up and !voting based on superficial misreadings of sources. The Sikhism WikiProject does not have a vested interest in seeing articles on Sikhism either kept or deleted "just 'cause", so expect WikiProject Sikhism's members to disclose their "bias" one way or the other would be pointless. On top of this, there is the fact that most WikiProject notifications have a standard, neutral wording, but this project's guidelines explicitly tell posters to include a rationale for not deleting the pages in question, which raises issues. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
We have no "vested interest". There are things listed now that no one went to other than the person adding them, and they got deleted. People only participate if they believe the article meets the notability guidelines. I often comment in AFDs without saying KEEP or DELETE, just discussing where more sources might be found. Since you mentioned the Sikhism, I assume you are referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of General Caste in Sikhism (2nd nomination) where I tried to be helpful at finding data on a government website, and you then wrongfully accused me of "auto-!vote keep" despite me not even voting in that one. At the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raw intelligence I didn't comment since I didn't understand if this was a real thing or not, but after Andrew D. improved it, I and three others said KEEP. One of those said DELETE originally, but after his improvements changed it to keep. You seem to just be imagining things. Dream Focus 05:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
"notability guidelines" are not the only inclusion criteria, and are in fact subordinate to various policies like NPOV, NOR and COPYVIO. If you don't understand this, you should not be commenting in AFDs. If editors here don't feel articles are worth "rescuing", why are they even listed here? When I asked Andrew about what I think was the only one he posted here recently that he hadn't already !voted in (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonite), he explicitly assumed bad faith on the part of the nominator by claiming they were arguing for the page's being removed from the public logs rather than merging or redirecting. I didn't "wrongfully accuse you" of anything, and I really, really think you should think twice about repeating an accusation you've allready been told to retract. Anyway, you've now admitted to !voting "keep" in an article on a topic you know nothing about just because you believed your friend Andrew had sunk work into somehow improving it, and you still haven't answered my question from two weeks back -- have you ever !voted "delete" in a single AFD? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
My point was that its ridiculous you said that when I didn't vote KEEP in that one. As for the article that was improved, I and the others voted KEEP on it since it was sincerely improved in size, quality, and references. And I said I didn't understand if it was a real thing or not, all of my searches just showed it two words together. After references were found providing it was a real thing, I and others said KEEP. And I have voted delete in some AFDs, and even nominated articles for deletion in the past. If Scottywong's bot comparison bot still worked, you could see that. Perhaps there is a new bot around these days that lists how many times someone says KEEP or DELETE in an AFD. Years ago when others were making the same ridiculous claim you are now, this bot proved it nonsense. Dream Focus 06:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm pleased to see that another editor has reverted Dream Focus' revert, so at this point, Dream Focus is really the only editor who is edit warring against community consensus. I think I have answered all questions that I have been asked here, and this discussion has become a waste of time. If anyone doesn't like it, ANI is that-a-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
All but one of you got together on a talk page complaining about us, and got together to edit war this ridiculous change. Good look with ever enforcing it. Dream Focus 18:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I wish everyone here good luck, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
All but one of you got together on a talk page complaining about us, and got together to edit war this ridiculous change. Umm ... no ... I posted on Jytdog's talk page about an essentially unrelated issue (the prospects of MFDing this page), and Tryptofish (who I can only assume has Jytdog's talk page on eir watchlist) jumped in and made an incidental comment that ARS's code of conduct had a clear deficiency and that they had gone ahead and corrected it. I haven't actually edited the template (although I definitely would have if I was the first to notice any of your reverts), Godric was not involved in (or even likely aware of) the discussion on Jytdog's talk page, and another editor who has had nothing to do with the template discussion agreed with my basic premise on Jytdog's page. You're digging yourself into a hole here by accusing a clearly unrelated group of editors of "colluding" to alter the template: you've already proven time and again that you are unwilling to retract bad-faith accusations despite repeated warnings. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I didn't mention you, I said all those edit warring it back in except one person, that being Winged Blades of Godric, were on that talk page discussion in the section he asked others to "keep an eye on this. Dream Focus 23:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, I was not involved in any "talk page cabal" and I agree with the additions. Saying one is from ARS does not lessen the validity of a well reasoned and supported !vote and it will, through the added transparency, address the accusations of canvasing which seem to pop up now and again. Jbh Talk 23:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
And now, forum-shopping at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Violation of Q6. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Its not forum shopping. The rules at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Role_of_the_WikiProject_Council I state I can bring disputes t here. Dream Focus 23:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, yeah, but your message about the dispute made absolutely no sense, as this has nothing to do with tagging articles as falling within the project's area of interest; as I've stated a few times already, ARS doesn't have a specific topic-based area of interest, so that would be a contradiction in terms if it even had anything to do with this dispute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • My $0.02 I've rephrased the CANVASS note a bit more positively, which I'm sure we can all agree upon. I took out the 'say where you came from' suggestion, because that would introduce an expectation unique to ARS. I note that in the past self-proclaimed deletionists have used the ARS lists to counter-vote-stack, which is, IMHO, just as against the spirit of consensus building as any similar-but-inverse inclusionist use. Basically, everyone should be reviewing every XfD on the merits, and partisan votestacking is wrong no matter who does it. Oh, and I'm still not a member of this Wikiproject, in case anyone cares. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jclemens: I forget where, exactly, but I said sometime in the last few days that the difference between ARS and other projects is that it is focused specifically on "rescuing" articles that have been nominated for deletion, rather than on a specific topic area: I'm as likely to !vote one way as the other in an AFD on a Japanese, Chinese, Buddhist or biblical topic, but that is clearly not the case with certain "core" members of ARS (who readily label folks like me as "deletionists" because we don't like disruptive misrepresentation of sources like went on certain recent AFDs, and so can be safely assumed to oppose deletion in general). There is a difference between "deletionists" and "inclusionists" who monitor ARS, in that the former are overwhelmingly more likely to say "FWIW, this AFD has been listed on the Rescue List" in their comments; telling the latter that they should (not must) do the same to avoid giving the impression of trying to hide canvassing doesn't seem like a problem. What would you think of "It is recommended that you..." or even giving an explanation along the lines "To avoid giving the impression of having been inappropriately canvassed"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Jclemens: You are quite right about the importance of phrasing it more positively, and I appreciate that you basically agree with the underlying sentiment. However, shortening it to where we just tell users to be "scrupulous" takes all of the meaning out of it: no one believes that they are being unscrupulous. You said in your edit summary that "no one else is required to state why they came to an AfD." Not true. If someone comes to my talk page, and to the talk pages of several other editors, and asks all of us to go to a particular AfD because they believe that we are all like-minded, I am most certainly expected to point to the message at my talk page if I in fact do comment at the AfD. Same thing for an RfC. (And the language here is "should", not "must".) And even if the person came to an AfD from here because they have been watching as a deletionist, the exact same expectations apply to them. We should assume that anyone utilizing the Rescue List will abide by the same code of conduct – it applies equally to inclusionists, deletionists, and neither-one-ists. And even given that, the Rescue List is unique in that its stated purpose is to take one side in decisions about whether or not to keep content, even if some users occasionally watch it for other reasons. I've further modified what you wrote, for those reasons. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
For convenience, here is a combined diff of both Jclemens' edits and the one that I then made, showing the net change: [15]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Template possibly of interest

Template:OldcsdRescued - for articles that have been undeleted after a CSD deletion. E.g. {{OldcsdRescued|A7|the article is just not notable|Example|Example}}

∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

RfCs

There are some RfCs which may be of interest:

An external article was mentioned in another topical discussion, "Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance" and may be good background for these developments. Andrew D. (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion tip of the day

Today's tip of the day instructs anyone reading it how to delete articles. The instructions are incomplete, omitting WP:BEFORE or instructions to attempt to improve an article before making such a nomination.

I commented Wikipedia talk:Tip of the day#Deletion tip. Trackinfo (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Signpost article

There's an interesting article about the founding of the ARS in this month's Signpost. I wasn't familiar with this history and so thanks to Kudpung for publishing it. Andrew D. (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment :Ongoing related discussion at ANI 7&6=thirteen (☎) 08:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
One does not have to be a prophet to see the writing on the wall. WP:Dead horse. Some see this as an ongoing course of conduct coordinated by a group. Draw your own conclusions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
There has never been a community consensus that this WikiProject's behaviour was acceptable, with many of the project's more virulent members being site-banned (or de facto site-banned) over the years, and the only reason the whole project hasn't been deprecated and the rescue list deleted is that the project's original stated purpose (canvassing "keep" !votes) has been made ineffective through greater and greater restrictions. The above "the result was snow keep" is a blatant misrepresentation of the actual consensus, where most of the third-party "keep" !votes (mine included, although I am technically an ARS member) were essentially "Yeah, the project has problems, but deleting the rescue list off the bat is not going to solve them". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Perennial proposal, renaming AFD to Articles for Discussion, or Articles for Depublication

Does this wiki project think that renaming AFD, to something like "Articles for Discussion" or "Articles for Depublication" would be useful to be more welcoming to new editors? We can see that the perennial proposal had consensus in 2009, limited by inertia and technical difficulties. Perhaps if it was called Articles for Depublication it wouldn't have to take on Merger and Redirect discussions, but increase the perceived cross cultural civility of deletion debates. --E.3 (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Casey Mongillo

2nd nomination Casey Mongillo Attempted Speedy deletion. Which I contested. I have no idea what is going on. They are out in force, but you will have to figure it out on your own. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Shut down Article Rescue Squadron which may be of interest. GMGtalk 15:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

A Joyous Yuletide to you!

Christmas card by Louis Prang, showing a group of anthropomorphized frogs parading with banner and band.
Carole of the Bells by Pentatonix


Hello ARS Members, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on capping AFD/PRODs

Please note a discussion topic I raised at the AFD talk page: "Cap on AFD/PRODs in a given period of time?". Perhaps it will go nowhere, or has been discussed before and I simply wasn't aware of it, but I felt it was worth bringing up. — Hunter Kahn 15:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

War on WP:ARS in another forum

We've seen this stuff before. Here it is again. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Might be of interest. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

request for info on this group

Hi. I would like to help this group in its work. could you please tell me who some of the coordinators are, or else some of the lead members, or else a few highly-active members? I need for a list that I am compiling, in order to help and assist other editors here. thanks. Please ping me when you reply. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there are any coordinators. It's an unruly group of interested editors; they go where they want and edit as they see fit. Not quite anarchy, but not much concerted activity, either. That's my opinion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

AfD colour

Under discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Color_of_AfD_Template. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_59&oldid=1137354028"