Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 45

I undid this edit

 * See also: template talk:Rescue

I have not seen any consensus for it and it seems somewhat counterintuitive that the rescue tag could be challenged and one would have to defend ones desire to have it rescued. Consider it challenged. Unomi (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems entirely proper that tags should be justified. It's interesting to note that Unomi is an editor who has a history with me. Why should an unjustifed tag that no one defends remain? If no one defends it, there is no discussion, and no justification, then it is clear it should be removed. We should not say that anything should never be done, except in certain special cases (BLP, etc). Verbal chat  19:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I also don't see why the actions of the ARS should be above requiring justification. If we tag an article we have a duty, like an edit, to justify it if requested. If the person who places the tag, or someone else, doesn't justify it after a request at the talk page/AfD, then the tag can be removed. If a consensus of editors feel the tag is of no value, then it can be removed. We shouldn't make absolute rules that tags can never be removed. If you want the tag to be part of the AfD template, then you'll have to take that up there. Verbal chat  19:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Verbal, thank you for the knee-jerk 'this user has a history with me', I wonder if there an SPI case waiting for me as well ;)
 * It simply makes no sense to have the rescue tag removed prior to the xfd resolution. If it is a case that falls under snow or speedy then the tag simply goes with the resolution. If it is not a snow or speedy then wider participation is likely not harmful. The end result is that the ARS tag being there has no real downside, unless of course you want to avoid scrutiny and bog your opponent down with wikilawyering, in effect forcing a duplication of the xfd discussion with justification of why the ARS tag(hence article) should be kept. The ARS tag does not require consensus, nor should it, those that may find the afd via ARS are more than able to make up their own mind regarding the relative merits of keeping the article. I am unaware of the discussion regarding integrating ARS with afd template. Perhaps you would be kind enough to link me to it. Unomi (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)It is inappropriate because ARS is a counter-action to the filing of an AFD. No editor can unilaterally remove an article from AFD once it has been nominated for deletion. In the same manner, no editor should unilaterally remove the   template from an article. The addition of the template says one thing, and one thing only - that the editor placing the template believes the deletion of the article is unjustified and seeks assistance in following WP:SOFIXIT. AFD exists for the purpose of debating whether or not an article meets policy. The nominators opinion is clearly known by the addition of the AFD template. Another editors conflicting opinion should not be dismissed in the same manner as vandalism. Simply removing another editors addition of the rescue tag is a major breach of WP:AGF. Also, if this kind of change is to be made, it should be done first by generating consensus for appropriate changes to WP:AFD to change established AFD process. I also don't see the purpose of asking for justification. Any of WP:5P (inluding WP:IAR) can easily be cited as justification for the tag. Do we really need to encourage this kind of contenitous back and forth on an article?  Jim Miller  See me 20:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"If the tag is challenged or removed a justification should be placed on the talk page before the tag is restored." should not be part of policy for the following reasons: I;m scatching my head at how this wording could have remained in the template for any length of time - it's clearly bad. Artw (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It encourages disrupting behaviour. Removing the resuce tag is almost never justified and is usual part of a pattern of behaviour where an editor advocating deletion of an article attempts to prevent it's improvement. This does not help Wikipedia.
 * It makes undoing bad behaviour harder - if someone is disrupting article improvment by template removal then undoing that should not have to be justified. It's pretty much the inverse of how things should be - if you remove a resuce tag you should have presented a very good reason for doing so
 * Cases where there is a good reason for removing the rescue tag are usually pretty clear cut and non-confrontational. If the tag isn't being removed by some kind of consesus then it should be removed at all.


 * Of course removing a rescue tag is unproductive. The tag is there to let people know it might be savable.  One shouldn't be required to justify their opinion on the article's talk page - that argument belongs on the AfD.  If the opinion is wrong, the article will be gone in less than 7 days anyway.  Frankly I can't believe we are even having this conversation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll just butt in to agree with your bafflement. Great big intrusive tags at the top of an article which besmirch that article's sourcing, notability, NPOV, whatever, are allowed to stand for years, without the original tagger being under any obligation-- actual or implied-- to fix the problem s/he thinks s/he sees. This looks an awful lot like graffiti to me. Yet a small group of editors complains about a "Rescue" tag which only exists during the running of an AfD? 7 days maximum? I find it very hard to believe this is a good faith concern. Dekkappai (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is not the appearance of the tag on the article but the impression that it is often followed by an influx of editors who don't address the article's problems and vote "keep" or "strong keep" because that's the only thing they have in their repertoire. Hans Adler 22:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been accused at many times in the past, including during multiple MfD's attempting to delete this project. These accusations have not been backed up by actual diffs showing that adding the rescue tag attracts a greater number of unjustfied keep votes than any other controversial AfD without the tag. It's a perennial WikiMyth.  Jim Miller  See me 22:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess we are having this conversation because in the past there have been cases of people showing extremely bad judgment in the application of this tag. Its original purpose was for attracting competent editors to a badly written article on a boderline notable topic. These competent editors would then improve the article to the point where it easily survived AfD. That's a constructive use of the template, and that's why the template is allowed to exist. There is no problem with this, and it would normally be disruptive to remove the tag in such a situation.

The problems come from people trying uncritically to rescue articles with no potential whatsoever. IMO Telepathy and war was an excellent example for this. To put it very bluntly: If someone starts an article about what the voices in his head are telling him, then it's disruptive to tag this article for "rescue" unless it's at least a borderline notable subject. That kind of action makes the ARS look very bad. I can only explain them with an extreme lack of common sense or as an attempt to push towards a lax notability standard by defending even obviously worthless crap. The latter would be a severe breach of the spirit of Wikipedia.

I don't know if such things have been going on recently. Perhaps Verbal can explain if there was a recent provocation of this kind. Hans Adler 15:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I wrote on template talk:Rescue "This discussion hits upon something which has bothered me for some time. No matter how stupid or idiotic a AfD creation is, everyone repeatedly says, let it run its course. And yet some in the community seem to feel there should be a much higher standard for the rescue tag which is placed on AFDs." There are a lot of good articles which get put up for deletion for really shitty reasons. What does the community do? They have been loathe to tighten any of the regulations on how easy it is to put an article up for deletion. Will there still be shitty AFD nominations, count on it. Will the ARS tag be used in a way it shouldn't sometimes, of course. That doesn't mean we scrap the entire system because of a few people with bad sense. Using the ARS tag badly is a reflection on that user, not a reflection on the ARS. Just like a bad AFD nomination is a reflection bad about the user, not the AFD system itself. Ikip (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. There is excess on both sides. I have seen perfectly good articles deleted and couldn't do anything against it, and I have seen blatantly non-notable articles survive and could do nothing against it. Which of the two you see more probably depends on your fields of interest and on which project pages you watch. And then also on your views on notability. The polarisation and unwillingness to compromise on both sides leads to a certain degree of randomness or arbitrariness for everything having close to borderline notability. Hans Adler 22:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Removal of the rescue tag is pointless. Discussion about whether it is disruptive to remove it is doubly so.  pablo hablo. 20:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Overzealous use of the Rescue tag might waste the time of a few editors who voluntarily put in a vain effort to save an un-saveable article. Overzealous use of the AfD system does result in disruption of editors' time, and needless editing-time-wasting drama. Avoiding an AfD discussion is not as voluntary as ignoring a "Rescue" tag, because avoiding the AfD discussion potentially results in the loss of articles on appropriate subjects from Wikipedia. Ignoring a "Rescue" tag for seven days while an AfD runs its course results in... nothing. I see no comparison. Dekkappai (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I agree, but it shouldn't be. Unlike an AfD the rescue tag is not a process that sets a precedent. If it's used in an obviously inappropriate way it should be possible to remove it, preferably by a decision here on the ARS talk page. Hans Adler 22:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Better yet, someone brings a really stupid and pointless "rescue" here and a bunch of people all !vote delete (or merge or whatever) resolving the problem and demonstrating that the ARS isn't an inclusionist bastion, just a bunch of people who hate to see stuff with potential get deleted. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ant AFD
(section renamed from WOW) A species article is up for deletion. Joe Chill (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WOW please don't canvass AfDs. Verbal chat  19:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that this is the third time you've done this. Please place the rescue template if you feel it is warranted, but do not post requests here in this way. Verbal chat  19:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Point to a section of a policy that forbids it. Joe Chill (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CANVASS. The reason for the template is to avoid this issue. Verbal chat  22:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Posting on appropiate Wikiprojects about AFDs has always been allowed. Why aren't you complaining about me posting on the Arthropods Wikiproject? What about the many (as in most)editors that agree that notifying a related Wikiproject is allowed? Joe Chill (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this only goes by your POV and was accepted for years, I'm done with this discussion. Joe Chill (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't an appropriate wikiproject, and the tag already alerts members. I'm not complaining about other edits you've made as I've not looked at your edit history and don't know what other pages you've canvassed/edited/alerted appropriately or inappropriately. This one is inappropriate. Verbal chat  22:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This kind of canvassing is part of the reason this wikiproject has such a bad reputation. What's wrong with the tag? Why do you feel that isn't sufficient? Maybe we could fix that? Verbal chat  22:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC) readded by  pablo hablo. 22:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

←x4Joe, the undefined template serves to notify the members of this project, probably best just to use that to avoid any appearance of canvassing. pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 22:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and notifying relevant wikiprojects is fine (in moderation). For example, if it was an MfD of WP:BEFORE or something, that might be relevant - but otherwise the tag should be used. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  22:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A Wikiproject is a fine place to post concerns about a relevant article at AFD. This Wikiproject is focused on articles nominated for the AFD.  So any article nominated, is something we are involved in, and you can mention it here if you think the members of this Wikiproject might be interested.  Stop thinking of us as different as any other Wikiproject.  Others have done this before and not been criticized.  It is more convenient to simply tag it though, since otherwise this page would fill up rather quickly.   D r e a m Focus  07:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This posting is not given in a neutral manner. Joe Chill couldn't have made it more obvious that he is against the AFD nomination, and he expects the reader to have the same opinion. Technically that counts as canvassing. When the tag is added, the page is added to CAT:ARS, which I think ARS members monitor regularly. So I have to agree with Verbal that this kind of comments are unnecessary. Even if they are necessary they should be unbiased and not given in this tone; a simple notification is all that would be needed. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 08:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's WP:AGF. Writing a species article is up for deletion is indeed a very simple and neutral sentence that informs of a fact and in no way includes any indication that it was intended to sway editor's opinions at the discussion.  Had it been sent only to editors actively editing WOW articles, or had it asked that editors vote keep at the discussion, THAT would be canvassing. All that happened here is that he posted it in a place where interested editors had already been made aware... so at worst, it was an unneccessary additional step after his tagging the article for rescue in the first place. It has already been repeatedly determined that adding a RESCUE tag is not considered canvassing, as the the tag is simply intended to inform ARS that assistance is being requested in improving an article (and thus the project).  I for one am willing to accept in good faith that he may have been unaware that the tagging already acted to inform members of the ARS, that his note here was meant in good faith only to supplement that tagging.  I suggest we all review WP:AFD and brush up on WP:CANVAS... meaning and intent, and not read anything into his telling ARS what ARS already knew.  I feel sure that he now understands that if he tags something for rescue, ARS has by that act already been notified.  This instance is definitely a case of no-harm, no-foul.  MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Chamal, stop assuming bad faith (God, that happens a lot). The issue is settled. Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed it has been settled. This is not acceptable practice and should cease. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So does this mean you will no longer "canvas" on the fringe theories noticeboard Verbal? Ikip (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Verbal's "canvassing"
Almost every edit of on the Fringe_theories/Noticeboard since July 2009 could be considered "canvassing" by the definition in which he himself uses. Verbal has consistently used Fringe_theories/Noticeboard as his own rallying page, using non-neutral terms (in violation of WP:canvas) to describe other editors contributions.

As the below collapsed table clearly shows, and what has continued to bother me, is that critics have one standard for others and others' projects, and another standard for themselves and their projects. The members of Article Rescue Squadron simply wants the same rights and privileges that other projects and editors enjoy, including Fringe_theories/Noticeboard and Verbal.

These edits cover: 17:00, 24 July 2009 - October 30 2009,  Fringe_theories/Noticeboard.

{|class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" ! Verbal's "canvassing"

Deletion "canvassing"

 * 1) Stanley Krippner‎ A fringe bio which is having a lot of back and forth. Mostly consisted of a dubious biography and dubious praise. The AfD seems to rely a lot on GHITS and his large "publication" record. 09:11, 14 October 2009.
 * 2) Reincarnation research an attack page?  recently nominated Reincarnation research for speedy delete as an attack page. More input and eyes requested on this and related articles (Ian Stevenson, [[Jim Tucker, Reincarnation, and European Cases of the Reincarnation Type). 09:43, 3 October 2009.
 * 3) Just a note that this article has been nominated for deletion. 12:27, 30 September 2009.
 * 4) Someone is claiming that as this guy has written 3 non-notable books he doesn't need to be notable, and is adding references to the article which are sourced to ... wait for it ... the articles talk page! Which features the famous Nancy Merkle!! And the subject himself (or so the IPs claim) has also posted a long diatribe on the rather awful talk page. Help needed to fix this! Should it go to AfD? Is he notable? 20:13, 26 September 2009.
 * 5) This article has been nominated for deletion: Articles for deletion/Ra (channeled entity) (2nd nomination) 09:22, 20 August 2009.
 * 6) I find it disappointing that an editor has gone straight to AfD without continuing the discussion about addressing notability, adding sources, or the possibility of merging. 17:00, 24 July 2009.

Edit war "canvassing"

 * 1) Note non-neutral tone Could do with some attention. Arguments about notability and adding dubious sources countering criticism, and not only giving the article a criticism section but a response to criticism section - which I find very unencylopedic. Anyway, could do with some TLC from assorted editors here. Please join in! 21:33, 26 September 2009.
 * 2) Note non-neutral tone Race and crime in the United States This article, which was previously a racist troll magnet called Race and crime, has reared its ugly head again. Some have tried to fix the problems, and the article is better than that it replaced, but it still contains (until I removed them anyway) raw statistics, in a table format without any contextualising or explanatory text, and some fringe theories, one factoid sections (removed), and a section "Racially motivated crime" which contains a paragraph about one rather dubious theory. Many many more eyes and opinions please (I may be being overly harsh as I remember the problems with this article in the past, so please can as many of you go and have a look, and see what you can do). 15:15, 24 September 2009.
 * 3) Colloidal silver‎ "Can some people please have a look at this article.  apparently WP:OWNs this page, and is editwarring to his preferred version and engaging in personal attacks on other editors on the talk page. The dispute revolves around the alt med use of colloidal silver, and using in vitro studies of silver (not colloidal necessarily, or of the alt med treatments) to support the alt med section. A summary of the alt med evidence base is also being removed from the lead. More eyes and opinions required, I find it hard to engage with the level of vitriol directed at othhr editor though." 17:42, 22 October 2009.
 * 4) Admin attn required on Talk:Parapsychology  is engaging in persistent personal attacks against editors on the talk page of this and related articles, and his own user page (where he calls other editors "retarded"). He's had several warnings about this, and related blocks. Could an admin look into this please?  12:38, 6 October 2009.
 * 5) Rename of List of topics characterized as pseudoscience This article has just been boldly renamed without discussion. Probably deserves some debate. At the very least the text needs changing to match to the new title of Outline of pseudoscience. (I prefer the very old title without the silly extra verbiage) 10:53, 5 October 2009.
 * 6) I'd support that merge. At the moment there is a new editor attempting to remove the criticism by Barrett saying it's unfair.  17:07, 28 September 2009.
 * 7) "Please join discussion at article" I'd like to encourage you all (and anyone else) to make their views known on the article talk page. 08:20, 26 September 2009.
 * 8) Note non-neutral tone "Also Holographic principle is being spammed in the same way by the same editor, who refuses to participate on the talk page." 20:59, 14 September 2009.
 * 9) Note non-neutral tone Gary Schwartz This article is an absolute mess. The quality of the writing is poor, it is credulous, it venerates the subject, and is very very poorly sourced. Some help would be appreciated as I am having huge co;puter proble;s, and I've already been called "suspicious" and had ;y editing generally called into auestion by a brand new editor on the talk page...   16:54, 25 August 2009.
 * 10) I have now been accused of having a WP:COI because I do not support a users edits - despite having supplied references, etc. Please have a look.  10:09, 19 August 2009.
 * 11) Sense About Science There has been a recent edit war on the page of this anti-fringe group, with one editor reverting any changes made to address issues they raised to a version with less information, and now there are accusations of POV and OR. It is claimed that the article is unbalanced, that describing positive coverage without an RS that the coverage is positive is OR, and that the article gives undue credibility to SaS. I would like more editors to review the arguments from both sides and add your own if you like. Please watchlist and join the talk page discussion.  08:20, 19 August 2009. (empahsis my own)
 * 12) If it hasn't been covered in WP:RS then it should be nominated for deletion ASAP. Otherwise, getting it into a much better state before the bock expires would be great. Does it meet WP:GNG?  15:02, 18 August 2009.
 * 13) "Homeopathy is/isn't FRINGE Some debate on the homeopathy page talk here as to whether homeopathy is covered by WP:FRINGE. Clearly relevant to this noticeboard. Also, several other interesting discussions, if you can cope with the feeling of déjà vu. 11:10, 14 August 2009.
 * 14) Now sourced information is being removed as it's 'unfair'. Sheesh.  18:20, 12 August 2009.
 * 15) Ian Stevenson 4 This article is again undergoing edits that change whether Stevenson's research is accepted or rejected at large, possible mischaraterisations and misrepresentations of sources, peacocking, etc. Please take a look. The discussion on the talk page is repetitive and tedious, unfortunately.  13:29, 11 August 2009.

Notification of article "canvassing" possible edit war "canvassing"

 * 1) Note non-neutral tone  Igor Panarin This fringe blp may be unintentionally hilarious, but I think it suffers from several problems, including coatracking, peacocking and puffery, an unencyclopedic and credulous tone, and undue weight. It's a big job though, I'm not sure where to start - and I'm sure tagging will be bitterly resisted. Related awful article Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010...  08:54, 15 September 2009
 * 2) Note non-neutral tone Color light acupuncture - meridians proven? Apparently meridians have been proven to exist, and light proven to flow through them. This article is a spammy mess of poor sources and COI advertising. More eyes please.  05:04, 15 September 2009.
 * 3) Passage meditation This article just came to my attention. Could do with a cleanup and perhaps rebalancing. 11:13, 19 October 2009.
 * 4) Water fluoridation There are two issues of interest here, I think. 1, There has been a lot of vandalism here today (anti fluoridation TV show somewhere?), and 2, there is a talk page discussion about whether the page is "balanced".  19:18, 12 October 2009.
 * 5) Out-of-place artifact Clearly a fringe topic that is occasionally full of many unsourced claims. Please add WP:RS, and otherwise improve the page.  09:58, 23 September 2009.
 * 6) Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy If some more medical type doctors could look over this article and check whether it is fringe or not, and accurate, I'd be grateful at least. There are a few warning signs - such as "despite FDA approval there is no evidence that it works..." (paraphrase)   16 September 2009.
 * 7) Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories and pseudoscience Question being considered here: Should this article have the pseudoscience tag and template? It's also home to a lot of fringe POV pushing generally, so a good one to add to watch lists. 08:36, 12 August 2009.

Merge proposal "canvassing"
Ikip (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I've proposed the merge, however the other editor has again removed some of the only reliably sourced material - the criticism - from the page, in apparent retaliation that I removed his quote and WP:SYTH. 17:22, 28 September 2009
 * 2) All instances of general purpose software and hardware are used for a specific purpose, so I don't see what that changes. The new redirect is the best resolution I feel.  20:15, 24 September 2009.
 * }

October Newsletter
We would love everyone's help with this draft!

The last issue was easy, we had all the history of ARS to draw from. This issue will only be for one month, so we need your ideas!
 * 1) Look at the last news section, and think of what else you could add that is news this time, please be bold, and add what you like.
 * 2) A Nobody or Ben may need help writing the contest section
 * 3) We need suggestions for the person to interview next.  I would like to get the interview out of the way as soon as possible.
 * 4) Fey, do you want to write the feature/opinion piece again, or have someone else?

Thanks for all your help thus far! Ikip (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * admin Paster Theo agreed to be interviewed. Ikip (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Respectfully suggest we consider a quarterly or "occasional" newsletter; unless we have something quite meaningful to say. We simply aren' so busy, IMHO, to warrant a monthly newsletter. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   06:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea Ben, like always. Lets see how much we have done by October, if there is not enough to go forward, we can make it quarterly. WP:Wikiproject Video Games just went quarterly too, it is something we can always do at anytime. Ikip (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Global Dynamics
I have noticed the number of articles tagged for rescue has dropped a lot, so I have been looking over the articles to see if they are worthy of saving, most are not. I have a handful for rescue.

I just tagged television series Eureka's Global Dynamics for rescue, although it was a tough one. The article as it stands right now is completely unsourced. I actually voted for redirect to Eureka.

If anyone thinks it is not a good candidate for rescue, remove the tag. Ikip (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Fictional history of the DC Universe article
I might need a little help rescuing Fictional history of the DC Universe (Deletion discussion). I've tried to fix the page, rearranging its structure and provide explanations, but I may not be explaining it very well.

The deletion discussion has moved on to other things but it started with the problems of original reseach and the fact that the history of the fictional DC Universe has be revised on several occasions. The original reason for deletion was based on the choice of which of the many dates should be used for a revised event. I have tried to clarify this by taking a holistic approach and including all of them, regardless of when it was considered "canon" as far as DC is concerned. To support this, I have added tags to indicate to which "era" of the DC Universe the dates applied. (So far, I only have a few events to which this applies but it is a start.)

Does the article make sense as it is? Which bits need further, or better, clarification? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will see what I can do to help, although I have little interest in comic books. Ikip (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ad
Wasn't sure where to put this. I saw that ARS was looking for an ad in the newsletter, so I figured I'd do one. Tell me if you want any changes done.

— neuro  (talk)  15:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * minor spelling: defenceless to defenseless. Or is that british english? nevermind.
 * Awesome. Thank you so much! Ikip (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * lolbritain — neuro  (talk)  17:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone can add it to their talk pages by copy and pasting: Ikip (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool!  D r e a m Focus  01:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Number of Google news results for all AfDs
For the past four days I have been working on a script which gives the number of Google news results for all articles in Articles for Deletion. We can then at a glance see how many news results each article has.

After this I am building a script we can use for articles tagged for rescue. this script will:


 * 1) lists the Wiki page history, including the top editors who edited the page in AFD.
 * 2) the number of Google news results for all pages rescue tagged for rescue.

Ikip (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool. It's a rough and ready approach, but better than none. What about Scholar and Books too, and an "intitle" version? Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, after I get this one done. great idea. Ikip (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The top three results, which I struck out, are incorrect because of the "" in the title and the & in the title. Everything else appears correct.


 * An idea that sometimes works is a Google search of wikipedia showing how a subject weaves into current articles - or not. That may help with this effort. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   03:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean the "what links here" link, except via google? Ikip (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, a string search. So if "John Snedly Foo" is at AfD, do a search to see if he is already on Wikipedia, whether linked or not. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   00:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Give me an example, if possible a url. Ikip (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well people, now I have a script that scrapes pages like this:
 * http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Wikipedia+talk%3AArticle+Rescue+Squadron
 * And then lists who has edited the page and when. This is a rough draft.
 * I now know how to add Google books, and will do that this week. Ikip (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Known issues
 * 1) Times out after 6 to 13 articles.
 * 2) Does not show next editor after anon and bot, example anon: List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006, Stolen Lives Refugee
 * 3) Occasionally does not show person who edited the article the most, for example, Avatar (Ultima)
 * 4) Does not show editors with spaces in their names.
 * 5) Does not read dash - properly, reads it as â€“10
 * 6) Does not read  quotes ""  properly
 * 7) Google book results, if no hits, searches without quotes. add a %2B (which is a + in computer code here: http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B%22Sharyn+Booth+%28Comedian%29%22

Formating issues/To add
 * 1) valign top and center
 * 2) Coding needed to be able to create external links, using StringReplace.
 * 3) article creator
 * 4) editor who nominated article for deletion.

Wish list Ikip (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Only list editors who have 3 or more edits.
 * 2) Articles linked in first paragraph.

Caveats This tool is misleading for phrases, which need to be searched with some degree of intelligence. From the list, searching for a phrase such as "List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq" is about as useless as possible. It also does not work when the term has a qualifier. It would be much more valuable to find some way of limiting the use to the cases where it is at least conceivable it will find hits. But what is the point of searching Google News instead of Google news Archive? Wikipedia is after NOT NEWS, and is interested in more than the last 30 days.  DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it has limitations, it only searches for the exact title listed.
 * It searches google news archives now.
 * I am trying to add google books now.
 * My biggest concern is how it times out after about 12 listings, followed by missing editors who have spaces in their names.
 * I can search it with and without quotes, that may help. what do you think? Ikip (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Vast improvements, including Number of Google news, books, scholar results for all AfDs
See: User:Ikip/2009_September_1 I would list it here, but that messes up the TOC. Ikip (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Ikip/2009_September_5 10:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

How to get more eyes on deletion discussions
Talk thread here. Fences &amp;  Windows  02:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny
Just stumbled on this: Extreme article inclusion Ikip (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Barony of Cartsburn
This article Barony of Cartsburn has been flagged as an AfD, however I do not understand why. I would be grateful for any help on avoiding this being deleted. I understand it to be notable, as other Baronies are held to be, as the AfD discussion demonstrates. The page was originally at Baron of Cartsburn, but this was moved to Barony of Cartsburn to respect some advisors' comments. The AfD discussion is registered against the original Baron of Cartsburn page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baron_of_Cartsburn. Editor8888 (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did some to help, looks like you have the references down pat. Keep adding references, and mentioning them on the talk page, no need to keep adding comment just write what you have done. Ikip (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Mercy for Animals
I was just reminded why I no longer write articles. The article I just created already has 2 tags on it, etc.

This article should be going up for deletion in the next 4 hours.

I would appreciate some help finding sources and writing this article.

Thank you. Ikip (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt that it will be deleted - and that's coming from someone who is generally a deletionist. This group is notable enough due to the recent controversy and independent news coverage. The tags are just warnings of possible problems. I help as best as I can. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * thank you for the offer to help. slimvirgin has been a god send on that article. I de-watchlisted Mercy for Animals after I added a lot of sources. I found the longer I was on wikipedia the more I had to play policeman with the hundreds of articles I edited, so I removed them all.  Thanks again for the words of support. Ikip (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that can happen. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirect being used as a back door deletion mechanism
A group of editors has proposed that the article Timewave zero be replaced with a redirect. The article has been in existence since 2004 and has survived 4 attempts at AFD. I feel the redirect proposal is a way of circumventing Wikipedia process as it does not require discussion by the wider Wikipedia community as an AFD or Merge would. I has set up an RFC to discuss the propriety of using REDIRECT in this way see Requests for comment/Policies. Contributions from the squadron would be welcome. Lumos3 (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. It was deleted after the first AfD, was twice kept under a different title, and was closed as a no consensus the last time around. If a good target exists, a discussion of a merge and/or redirect after a no consensus closure is a perfectly normal procedure. A redirect means that you can merge any reliable, noteworthy info in the target article, which is completely different from a deletion. Fram (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lumos, you can contact:
 * all of the editors of these past AfDs
 * AFDs You MUST contact ALL editors in the particular AFD, not just the editors who voted to keep. The only exception are those editors who have already commented in the RFC.
 * You can also contact all editors who have edited the talk and article page.
 * Editors who have edited the article in the past You can pick and choose who to contact and who not to contact. I believe the current common consensus is that the editor must have had significant edits on the page. I would say at least 3 or more major edits.
 * ...on a couple of conditions, which you MUST follow, otherwise it is unpermited canvassing:
 * In ALL the CASES the notification MUST be neutral, example of a neutral message:
 * ==Talk:Timewave_zero==
 * Notice: You commented in a Article for deletion for Timewave zero a RfC has been opened on whether this article should be merged. Please comment on the above link. ~
 * You can also contact:
 * Wikiprojects related to the project, based on the history of wikiproject notifications, the message does not necessarily have to be neutral, but I suggest that it is, no more calling redirects "backdoor deletions". Study the history of the wikiproject on the talk page though before posting, some wikiprojects tend to be more deletionist or inclusionist.
 * Article talk pages related to the project, the message should be neutral, such as Terence McKenna and Alfred North Whitehead.
 * Notifying editors about a significant change to a page makes sense. These editors have a stake in its outcome and/or an interest in the material.
 * I hope this helps. Editors (especially those who have the numeric superiority right now to merge) may inevitably state that some or all of this is not true, but I am willing to point out all the rules and argue all of these points on your behalf if necessary, if you follow the rules precisely above. I cannot be responsible for your actions if you do not follow the rules above precisely.
 * Just a few months a go, I myself was arguing that redirects "bury" material. But I don't see a redirect as a deletion anymore. The page history is still there, for all people to enjoy. Other active squadron members may disagree with me about this.


 * RENAMING RFC, currently Talk:Timewave_zero I would rename the RFC to something more neutral, such as Talk:Timewave_zero.
 * If you don't rename it, I will unfortunately have to decide that you are to risky to help you further. Ikip (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have renamed the RFC to the more neutral title you suggest. Lumos3 (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, you have now effectively stopped one of their primary complaints.
 * You chances of stopping this redirect are slim. It appears as if those who support the redirect care more about it than other casual editors like me who don't support the redirect. And they out number you.
 * I think the only hope is that editors who edited the article significantly in the past and really care about the subject start to get involved, editors who can argue as passionately as you can for long periods of time.
 * In my opinion and experience the cruel hard truth is that, sources, notability, and past successful deletion discussions are secondary to the majority of articles.
 * What matters first and foremost is having editors who support your view. Those editors have it. You don't. So your chances of sucess at this point are slim.
 * Message User:A Nobody, he has experienced this bitter reality recently. He maybe able  to give you advice, or at least console you in your defeat. Ikip (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

300th member soon
We are 15 members short of 300, WP:ARSM. We should come up with an award, similar to a barnstar without the star, for this editor to be. Ikip (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members. 296 now. So close. We need an award. Ikip (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Thanks for putting the welcome on my user page. Much appreciated! Artemis84 (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

separate deletion page
Almost every other wikiproject has a separate page for deletion, for example WikiProject_Video_games/Deletion, which shows the full deletion discussion. I suggest we move these deletion discussions to their own separate page.

Personally, I have never once used the deletion discussion above which has the nomination listing only. Has anyone else used it?

In addition, it makes our talk page twice as long. Ikip (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

List of zombie novels
List of zombie novels has now been put up for deletion, Articles for deletion/List of zombie novels it is one the most comprehensive lists on the internet. Ikip (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If this doesn't get you excited, you're brain dead
Here are the articles currently tagged for rescue, extracted with my nifty Autohotkey tool:

User:Ikip/89

Yesterdays hits:

User:Ikip/2009 September 5

hopefully everyone can see the usefulness of this tool now. Ikip (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're brain dead... ;) (pointing out error in title) <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Verbal, it is really flattering that an editor who has so many influential friends and is so influential and powerful is now looking at my edit history.
 * I have been trying to get editors here excited in what I have been doing for sometime now, with little response.
 * Yes, the end of the joke was going to be, if no one gets excited, I am brain dead . But you beat me to it :)
 * See you back at Articles for deletion/Visual Detection of Imaginary Roots in a Parabola
 * On an unrelated note, today GTBacchus said: "those who would save an article are wasting their time arguing with deletionists who will not be convinced by arguments"
 * I think I will make that into a template to add to my user page.
 * Ben, maybe that can be our motto :) Ikip (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a member of this squadron, hence this page is on my watchlist. I made a light hearted pun pointing out an error in the title of this thread. I swear on my honour I haven't looked at your edit history for ages. Also, I don't think I'm influential or powerful! I'm also not a deletionist. Is it ok if I correct the grammar? Cheers, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, so much for feeling special. :) You are one of the most respected editors on wikipedia, can we agree on this synonym? This partially comes from handling situations better than I ever can or ever will. ;-)
 * Oh, I get it, I missed that grammatical error before. Thank you for the correction.
 * Anyone is welcome to post here of course, and I am glad you have. I really love any persons feedback. NuclearWarfare actually wrote that he liked the autohotkey scrape above on my talk page, that made my week.
 * I appreciate your help and support :) Ikip (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have made it clearer! Thanks for the compliments, but I'm not sure they're true! I get pretty wound up so I'm not sure I'm that great an editor either. Oh well. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

<Big>Suggestions and wish lists are strongly encouraged

What would you all like to see? Ikip (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent work I used it yesterday, but didn't bother commenting on it then. Makes it easier to keep track of things, and see who responded to what.   D r e a m Focus  15:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, if you have any suggestions or bugs, please let me know. Ikip (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * nice 1, what a fantastic time saving tool,  will User:Ikip/89 always be updated? FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We are adding actual google news, google books, and google scholar summaries, like you would see on the page. Seeing if pop ups are available.
 * Also adding the actual changes each editor makes to the page.
 * Here is the script: User:Ikip/script with bare bones instructions on how to install.
 * No User:Ikip/89 needs to be manually updated right now. Ikip (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another editor and I are working on this more. User:Ikip/y are the bugs to be worked on. User:TodWolff suggested actually scraping and ADDING the actual google hits into a collapsible box or pop up screen. This will make our jobs so much easier. Ikip (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sony BDP-S1
Sony DBP-S1 is up for deletion. I'm a deletionist, but the users who want the article deleted are ultra deletionists as in they can't say why the sources aren't independent, how this is an indiscriminate collection of information, why they won't look at the sources, and they think that reviews don't show notability even though no guideline supports that. I think that the only way that this would be closed as delete is if the closing admin went by a head count, but it is impossible to know if the admin will close it irresponsibly. Joe Chill (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will see what I can do in the morning Joe. Thanks for letting us know. I am troubled at how many AFDs have happened, so close together, unless I am reading the years wrong again. Goodnight.Ikip (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Inclusionism and Deletionism debate between two prominent editors
I was wondering if we should do this for the next newsletter.

I think that would rock. But I fear that maybe you guys wouldn't, particularly Ben :(

We would need a good moderator. Ikip (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you think that a debate would be possible without either party either invoking Godwin's law, or one/both speakers being banned for intemperate remarks? (Just joking. Mostly.) If those could be avoided, we might have something interesting -- & informative -- to read. -- llywrch (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Are there any declared deletionists who are members of the ARS? Joe Chill is a deletionist and just sought the help of the ARS, so might be willing to participate. Fences  &amp;  Windows  08:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Might a mergist be allowed to sit in, as well? Perhaps as the moderator? -GTBacchus(talk) 08:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * GTBacchus, Are you volunteering?
 * No NAZIs here: In response to Llywrch: the key to avoid calls of Nazism [Godwin's law] and "having speakers being banned for intemperate remarks", is a strong moderator. Simple ground rules would have to be set up: the moderator is in charge, the moderator can delete/prune any content he wants. Do you have that kind of charisma GTBacchus? I think you do.


 * wikispeak: Fences and windows, you have a great suggestion, but I was thinking of someone even more influential and well known. The more influential the person, the less we have to worry about Llywrch's concerns. The longer an editor is on wikipedia, the more they are trained to speak and say things a certain way.


 * Civil Religion: The biggest hurdle I see to this debate is that some of the most influential editors are not going to want to be labeled inclusionist/deletionists. Influential editors realize that titles like "Inclusionist/Deletionist" are divisive, and invoke negative feelings. Wanting to appear to be a consensus builder, these influential editors publicly declare the "we are all wikipedians" mantra, denying that there is even a difference. These editors are hardly going to want to attach their hard earned reputation to "Inclusionist/Deletionist".


 * Influential deletionists: Several editors come to mind as great deletionists. But I don't want to publicly create a short list here, because these influential editors, who are much more smarter and persuasive than me, will get wind of their name being attached to "deletionist" and will convince everyone, including myself, to kill this idea before it starts. Instead, I will email you all and get your opinion.
 * The much shorter list: Great inclusionist? Well, that list is a lot shorter, and again I don't want to publicly create a short list.
 * Ikip (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ikip, I might be volunteering. The idea appeals to me, I think I have some moderator skills, and I do see myself as a mergist, who might lean in either direction on a particular case. It would come down to pragmatics of time and space - in particular I'm currently attending a workshop 7 time zones away from home, and at some point I'll spend two days in airports, and a third day asleep. (That'll be around 9/18-9/20) I gather this is something that would happen, at least to some extent, in real time, no? My online hours are one thing here, and will be something else back in Texas. Regarding your "civil religion" point, a thought occurs to me. Many influential Wikipedians, especially those who have worked on controversial topics, pride themselves on being able to see various sides of an issue. I wonder if the invitation could be pitched, not so much to find a "deletionist", but to find someone willing to speak "from a deletionist perspective"? This might help encourage the kind of detachment that would help avoid Godwin-type scenarios - it's easier to stay calm when representing a perspective that you don't identify with too closely. On the other hand, someone who is too detached might not represent the perspective to the satisfaction of real dyed-in-the-wool deletionists. Thoughts? -GTBacchus(talk) 14:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Real time: I haven't consider this. This was going to be a section for a newsletter. I like this talk page format fine, but am open to other formats.
 * RE: Civil religion, actually I wanted to bring this up too. It is much more easy to write inclusionist/deletionist (as I did above) but I usually avoid the term altogether outside of this page, and write the more tedious, "editor who tends to prefer to delete". That is something I think we both should try to do more. I like your idea. How about the even the more watered down, "editor who tends to prefer to delete"?
 * But the title, after it is written and the debate is done, should definetly have Inclusionist/Deletionist, to draw editors attention to the debate.
 * I envision a short introduction, explaining the history of the debate, probably staring in 2004, with footnotes/links for further reading.
 * How the questions are set up, the format, and even the rules, if you wish, is up to you as the moderator. Ikip (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (What am I getting myself into?!) Talk page format is good. Even there, there is a notion of time, though. I guess with the format wide open... hmmm. I'll meditate on this. I grant your point about the words "inclusionist"/"deletionist". I should probably call them "pro-cruft" and "anti-information" instead, or maybe "crusaders" and "jihadists". ("Pro-hate" and "anti-puppy"?) ;) No, I think that it's better to label perspectives that to label humans. I can take on "inclusionist" and "deletionist" perspectives as the mood strikes me. Perhaps you're suggesting that even that is a bit inflammatory? Why don't we start brainstorming up a list of questions that we'd like to see answered from those two perspectives? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many legal fictions on wikipedia. I didn't create them, I can stand most of them, but I have to live by them. Ikip (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

←Do "these two perspectives" exist? Are they as mutually exclusive as the wiki-warriors would have us all believe? Is the very use of these terms, along with other emotive language seen in phrases such as "attacking/defending an article", "nuke from outer space" and indeed "article rescue" of any benefit to the project as a whole?

It would make an interesting article to get some well-established editors to talk about how they view Wikipedia and how they contribute, but it will necessarily be a personal view; setting it up as "Inclusionist v Deletionist" seems doomed. There is no clearly-defined inclusionist (or deletionist) viewpoint, and there is no editor who has a mandate as a spokesman for even self-described inclusionists (or deletionists). pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 16:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Debates are so boring. I think that this group should try to get Peter Kuper to do it as a cartoon that could appear in each issue of the newsletter. Deor (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Responding to Ikip above, I think your point "civil religion" is important. From my experience on Wikipedia, I'd say there is no such thing as a pure deletionist or inclusionist -- which makes finding spokespeople that much harder. IMHO, anyone worth listening to would describe him/herself as having deletionist/inclusionist tendencies. After all, I know of only one pure inclusionist -- someone who seriously would want to do away with AfD in any way, shape or form -- & I'm not certain if he is still active on Wikipedia. (I assume that most of the people here would find that viewpoint too radical even for them.) As for the other school of though... unless an established Wikipedian has seriously nominated one of the core articles for deletion, I doubt this person's counterpart exists. As a last point, if you need to convince a "deletionist" to participate, one thing you can say to convince them is that as an "inclusionist", I'd like to understand the thinking of the opposite school of thought. (Especially in connection with that statement about Wikipedia encompassing "the whole of human knowledge", a statement which I believe has been a thorn in Wikipedia's side more often than a help.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I really like the idea, simply because this is the first time in three months that we have had this involved discussion on this talk page. :)
 * Pablomismo and Llywrch, I agree with you completely.
 * GTBacchus, until this idea has been sanctioned and blessed by Ben, it cannot really be an official ARS project. As the most active ARS member, I always have to differ to him first. So lets start the brainstorming with User:Ikip/Q If Ben gives his blessing, we can move it to the ARS newsletter page. Ikip (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't it make your red link blue? Whaddya think? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? Does Benjiboi own the Article Rescue Squadron? Just do it. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Ikip - fire away! It's not paper after all … pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 20:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks GT. I like blue better than red. Ikip (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your signature doesn't reflect this preference.... ;) -GTBacchus(talk) 20:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is fairly unlikely that any response from Benjiboi is going to be had any time soon. I think they have 'done one' after recent events. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * GTBacchus, I have an idea, why don't we ask the public to submit the questions? We could post the offer on WP:VPM, WP:AFD, etc. which will grow interest in this debate. GTBacchus, you can then choose which ones are the best to ask. I will e-mail Ben first to make sure it is okay. Ikip (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good morning! I like this idea; it's in the spirit of Web 2.0, and it promises to draw more attention than if we just pose a lot of our questions. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the point in it, these are certainly core issue concerns with hyper-polarized views. I would be more inclined to ask some seasoned vets like DGG what would actually help here. Simply rehashing key views seems like preaching to one's own choirs. If the Signpost people worked up something I certainly would read it and would support an effort encouraging them to take it on with the idea they would likely have a more neutral take/tone to all sides. The general tenor is one of ambivalence across the entire project. In short most editors simply don't care and, IMHO, don't have to. Sadly, do to wikistalking/harassment I may have to portion my energies but I will try to keep up with whatever the consensus is, I would ask that everyone look to what energy will be spent on this and what, realistically will ARS and the encyclopedia get out of that expended energy. I'm not sure this is a faulty idea but neither am I convinced there is much to gain. Perhaps if there are some measurable and realistic goals there might be another path to achieving those? -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   09:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will ask DGG. We will talk about this more before we move forward. Ikip (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Journals and magazines I have
Dear fellow articles rescuers, I am compiling the following list of journals and magazines that I subscribe to in order to better assist you in article rescue, i.e. so you know which articles I can conceivably help with based on what sources I may have that Google might not. Anyway, I hope it is useful. As you can see, I can probably best help with history and video game related subjects. And yes, at the time that I am posting the list is only about a percentage or so complete... Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What a good idea! I'm going to do this as well when I get home. In a similar vein, I've been keeping a User:GTBacchus/Species list for a while now. These are critters I can photograph, and potentially poke w/ sticks. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am happy to read that! I have scores of magazines and journals lying about, so it will take me some time to include them all.  By and large, I tend to still see value in citing publications rather than only internet sites and once organzied, I hope to add more actual magazine and journal citations to articles.  I have done a lot of rescue work on fiction characters, and have been compiling a notebook of all the out of universe development and reception information from actual magazines that is not duplicated in the standard Google search (there are tons) in the hopes that maybe even a decade from now if Wikipedia is still around being able to add some of this stuff.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Idea for article incubator
Article Rescuers might be interested in an idea being hashed out at User talk:GTBacchus. Feel free to discuss there, or to copy stuff here to talk about. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Centralising the proposal at WP:INCUBATE Fritzpoll (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a Criteria for speedy deletion rescue squadron equivalent?
Lots of articles that get nominated for speedy deletion are rescuable, especially Category:Empty pages for speedy deletion. I've rescued a few myself, but I don't think I qualify for this squad as I rarely visit afd. So could this project extend to Criteria for speedy deletion or is there an equivalent elsewhere?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * hangon :) But yes - a lot of stuff nominated for speedy is not deletable under speedy criteria - that is, one hopes, why RFA is s tough test to make sure that potential admins do actually understand what can be got rid of without consensus and that the rest must go through PROD or AFD. Pedro :  Chat  11:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd be a most welcome member of this squad WSC, even if you only rescue one or two articles a year.  We dont stand on ceremony round here.   I believe several members like Fences and the Colonel often save  articles from CSD and Prod, cant see any reason not to have a sub page or two dealing those types of rescue.   As for any equivalent elsewhere, have you checked with SoWhy? FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is like the questions on Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals. See:, above.
 * This question comes up often here. How do you see ARS's role in this? Build/suggest something and we will come.
 * Talk to squadron member and admin User talk:ThaddeusB‎, this is his primary focus. Ikip (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just remove the speedy tag. If there is enough content to build on that the article is possible to rescue, it's not speediable as empty. For most csd's this hold, an exception might be copyvio, but there it's best to delete before recreating anyway to prevent the possibility that the result be considered a derivative work. Taemyr (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A7 might be subject to a recsue, but it runs into the problem that if the article doesn't tell you why the subject might be important one don't know where to look for sources. If you suspect that an A7 subject is notable, and thus that the article is rescuable you should include that on the page.  Then remove the tag.  Taemyr (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, image deletion might benefit from resuce attempts. In particular F6 and F7.  These tags have a grace period.  However for these imagese they will usually be some that consider them rescuable, after all someone added them to an article, so a seperate rescue template on them might not serve much purpose. Taemyr (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron Above. Ikip (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never done any work on Speedies. Does one just look at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and check to see if the articles listed match the Criteria for speedy deletion, and if not you remove the tag, or improve the article and then remove the tag? There doesn't seem to be a centralised equivalent to the Prod Patrol for CSD. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Fence has a good point, but I am really glad that admin WereSpielChequers has decided to join our squadron. Ikip (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do this all the time I'm on speedy patrol. It's called "skimming the article before deleting it".  G10s and G12s get very little leeway, but I decline a lot of irrelevant tags, and convert a lot of marginal A7s to prods. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did my first run through of CSDs and came across a couple of inappropriate uses and a couple of articles that are probably notable enough to survive deletion. Just like Prod and AfD, the vast majority of articles deserve to get deleted, so it's a case of finding the needles in the haystack, hidden gems, tomatoes growing on the sewage, or whatever metaphor you prefer. Btw, it has been suggested that editors could direct articles they save from speedies or prods to the nascent Article Incubator. Fences  &amp;  Windows  05:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a number of subcategories at CSD, my experience is that the empty pages is the most fertile ground for rescue which is why I took the liberty of transcluding it into the project. By contrast the vast majority of pages tagged as attacks are correct tags, as are author requests, so there's not much point looking at them unless you are an admin. But CAT:CVSD is also fertile ground for article rescue.  I rarely look at copyvios myself but if you think the article is worth salvaging you already have a source - just rewrite it. But I should add that when declining speedies it is important to tell the tagger what you've done, and often to reassure an upset newbie whose article was about to be deleted.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  11:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing your expertise to this discussion. Ikip (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge to a non-existent article
Recently an article was substantially revamped during AfD. This is great. It did, however, entail moving the article to a more general topic and expanding on that. It strikes me that some of the vitriol in that discussion might have been avoided by instead creating the general article whole cloth and recommending that the more specific article be merged there. If the debate closes as keep rather than merge then - hey, congratulations, the encyclopedia gets two new articles on notable topics. As similar situations are likely to arise in the future, does anybody else think that it would be a good idea to put this advice here or somewhere in the deletion discussion pages? - 2/0 (cont.) 17:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If the outcome improves the encyclopedia then it's not terrible, but I would counsel against drastically changing the scope of an article during AfD. Your proposal to start another more general article and propose merging salvagable content is better than writing the general article over the top of the one of AfD. Anything like changes in title or scope in the middle of a discussion confuses the hell out of people and gives the impression of an attempt at something underhand. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 2/0, after 3 times reading it, I am confused by your question, can you give me an example?Would the brand new WP:INCUBATOR be a solution you are looking for? Ikip (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I moved the article in this case. I have done so before and would do so again if it seemed helpful, as it was in this case.    Such moves should not confuse because the AFD templates and links continue to work fine.  The rescue template, if there is one, needs a tweak to fix a red link, but that's the only technical issue.  Colonel Warden (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The specific proposal made by 2/0 above seems to have some technical issues in that creating a parallel article would be a WP:CFORK and, if any material were repeated, there would be licence issues. And those intent on deletion are likely to complain that the other article is a ruse to retain the material in another place.  Better to keep it all together until the dust settles. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be a parallel article, it would be a more general article that the article at AfD could be merged to; this will be fine if the more general article is well written and on a notable topic and the merged material is supported by sources, whether primary or secondary. I've realised there are some cases where I definitely support title or scope changes during AfD, e.g. Hell, Arizona. I'm just saying to be cautious and to expect it to raise hackles. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are cases where it just makes sense; there should be no encouragement to do it wholesale. pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 22:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

NOT
For anyone interested the template unencyclopedic has become NOT. Why is this useful? Well in the past the wording on unencyclopedic lead many articles to Afd because they where thought to be unencyclopedic(in the dictionary sense) and also the template in the past encourage article deletion. On top of that discussion in Afd would often get confusing because of the double meaning of the word unencyclopedic, the new name NOT should make conversation clearer because it refers to WP:NOT and has the same name. SunCreator (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * that's great! Now if the notability templates can only be changed...I think many editors search articles that have the notability template on them, then put them up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That reminds me, I came across an editor who was reducing articles to single sentence microstubs due to them potentially containing original research. They were going through the original research backlog and obviously thought they were helping, but in the process were gutting articles that were very much able to be sourced, if only someone put in the time and effort. It's not the same as deletion, but the effect is similar in that it removes content, and this editor had made no apparent effort themselves to source or otherwise improve the articles before stubbing them. I thought this approach was quite similar to deletionism. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * andrew lih wrote about an editor reducing articles to single sentence microstubs, then putting the articles up for deletion, the editor was later banned.
 * There are some editors who want to delete every article which is not sourced.
 * If you run into this again, encourage this editor to, at the very least move the unsourced material to the talk page. I was very impressed that TTN moves trivia sections to the talk page, instead of outright deleting them. This causes a lot less friction. Ikip (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My concern with the new template is that per our First pillar, we are also an almanac and gazetteer. Thus, to be truly accurate and consistent with our other policies and guidelines, it should say something like "not appropriate for an encyclopedia, almanac, or gazetteer"?  Something might not be in an encyclopedia, but be okay for an almanac and therefore still be okay for Wikipedia.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

New Bot to remind deletion nominator about new editors
I was thinking it would be nice that whenever a new editor put an article up for deletion, that editor was sent a message from a bot, reminding them that they can userfy, merge or redirect the article instead, and they still can close the AFD, and do this before anyone else comments on the AfD. It would only apply to new users who have never been notified by the bot before. Once notified by the bot, they will automatically be put on a do not contact list. Thoughts? Ikip (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe a bot to remind an editor that the editor was a new user, and that they can userfy instead, what do you all think? 67% of all articles put up for deletion are created by editors with 350 or less edits. Ikip (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You can not simply userfy an article. If anyone would go around userfying articles, they would soon be stopped. Merge and redirect are fine under BRD, but userfying should only be done at the request of the sole editor of an article, or after an AfD or DRV. If an article has only one editor, you can check if that editor would want it userfied instead of AFD'ed. Oh, and most of our editors are "editors with 350 or less edits", so that's not so strange. What amazes me much more is that 33% of the articles nominated for deletion were created by editors with more than 350 edits... Fram (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As a member of BAG, I'd be a little concerned about a bot like this - streams of unwelcome templated messages going out all over the place do not have wide community support in what are non-essential communications. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * AFDs have been closed userfied, and some admins have userfied these articles.
 * Userfication: It may be important to notify a user of the addition of content to one of their user subpages as well as action taken on content they posted. While a personal note generally is nice, the following templates may be used to provide the notification
 * Clearly this shows that userfication does not need the permission of the user.
 * Fritz, yeah, just a suggestion. Ikip (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not clearly, no. Usrfication is normally discussed with the user during an AfD (or DRV), and after the closure, when the userfication is performed, a templated note at the user talk page may be used to inform him of the fact. As can be seen in Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, there is considerable opposition against this userfication. And what you suggest here is that people may userfy an article instead of AfD'ing it, not suggesting the nominator that userfication is better (which at least involved two people, not just the one). What you did in those cases was done with the best intentions: but userfication by peope who want an article deleted is a dangerous system, open to abuse (much more so than e.g. an AFD). Fram (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I wrote to the editor who brought up this complaint:
 * emphasis on this, and this alone: the bottom line is this: I am following the rules that wikipedia has set up. An editor can ask a nominator to close an article, as long as all parties agree.
 * Fram this statment says volumes:
 * "I love this userfying idea. I'll try to find someone who is willing to team up with me, so that we can look for fancruft where the editor has not edited in a while: my userfy buddy nominates the article, I suggest userfying, he agrees, and poof! the article is gone from the mainspace, not even leaving a redirect behind. No need for discussion, agreement of the original editor, or any extended discussion. And if the article does come back, we can still start a normal deletion discussion..."
 * Generalized statements about editors ulterior motives rarely helps further the discussion.
 * Commenting on editors contributions with "uncivil" blanket words (fancruft) also rarely helps further the discussion.
 * Quote:
 * While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and that the contributor's judgment of the topic's importance is clouded by fanaticism. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil.
 * This is a new approach to dropping the number of AfDs we all have to manage.
 * The nominator seems to like the idea, the creator seems to like the idea, (except in the one case which brought this discussion), the only resistance is from completly uninvolved editors, one who is obviously monitoring my edits, who often label other editors contributions with the uncivil term "fancruft". I am suprised that such comprimising ideas are meeting such fierce resistance. Ikip (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how articles like User:Temambiru/Temesgen an Ethiopian musician, is fancraft. Ikip (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I continued my quote from above with "sarcasm aside"... No idea what you tried to prove with it, but I fail to see how it speaks volumes, apart from indicating a possible danger with other people using this userfication idea (I know that this is not the purpose you are using it for, far from it). And again, what you are proposing at the top of this page is not what you have done so far. You want a bot to suggest to a nominator that he shouldn't bother AfD'ing articles, but that he can just userfy them. Can you imagine what your reaction would be if you saw an article on your watchlist being moved to userspace, with a CSD:R2 slapped on the resulting redirect to boot? Userfication like this is worse than redirecting an article, and simple redirecting already causes lots of discussion and drama. Fram (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No more edit conflicts on talk pages - watch deletion discussion changes
This is off topic, but I thought I would share this with everyone, as it effects us all:


 * Village_pump_(technical)

The layout looks incredible! I tried it out.

Ikip (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Ikip/w Which is part of User:Ikip/w
 * I put the pages I want to follow on User:Ikip/w, and then click "related changes".
 * This creates a new independent watchlist for me.
 * This watchlist has dynamic capabilities which a normal watchlist normally doesn't. (like a drop down list of what editors have recently done on the page).
 * This way, you can have several watchlists at once:
 * an article watchlist,
 * a user watchlist,
 * a policy watchlist, and
 * an AFD watchlist.
 * With the drop down feature, you can keep track of who has edited the page without ever having to visit the page itself.
 * Ikip (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Dropping the fancruft title
Village_pump_(miscellaneous) Ikip (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't slow down, do you! Good suggestion. "Fancruft" is always unnecessarily insulting. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. No mature adult would ever use such a nonsense non-word as an argument for anything.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * meh. 'cruft' is a pertectly cromulant word; unlike 'cromulant' which has been in use for 50 years or so. Extensions thereof like 'fancruft' are therefore to be expected (and maybe welcomed) into the language. Maturity and adulthood are irrelevant. pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 22:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether it enters into language or not is irrelevant to whether we should use it in discussions that are supposed to be civil; it is usually intended to be insulting and is often perceived as such. I have a large vocabulary of insults that I would never dream of using on Wikipedia. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing a link definition, except you have to sign up to see that page. cromulant here redirects to Lisa the Iconoclast, a Simpson's episode. Urban dictionary has a definition. Ikip (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is wiktionary's definition: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cromulent Ikip (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @Ikip - sorry, I keep forgetting that one needs a library card to access that link; it is to the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of the noun "cruft". I have a copy of it on my user page.
 * @Fences and windows - if there is any incivility involved in using the word, it is directed to the article, rather than the user, isn't it? Much like the term "synthesis-filled POV content fork". pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 06:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You've either got a long memory or you've got too much time on your hands to find that diff. Anyway, do as I say, not as I do. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Long memory - both for that comment (which I agreed with) and for the entire AfD (and its subsequent sockpuppet investigations etc!) pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 22:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess Fences is a recently born again ARSer. (refactored out, your right, off topic) Ikip (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC) deleted text replaced with stricken text for legibility pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 06:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not my perception. However, this is a tad off-topic (my fault). pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 08:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Recently resigned ARSer, actually. So long. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)