Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A proposed revision to this project page

Given the recent concerns over whether some activities engaged in by ARS have been appropriate, I'd propose to amend the project page section starting. "The following is a list of content for rescue consideration. Please be sure to..." by inserting as the second item "Make a reasonable effort to improve the article yourself before posting here", or words to that effect. This will make suggestions of drive-by canvassing harder to justify. Comments, please? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. The most important way to preserve this list is for ARS to do a better job of self-policing. If the list ever leads to huge piles of votes, it will lose legitimacy. If it avoids that, it will remain legitimate. And if editors kinda nudge and poke each other when they start focusing more on voting than improving articles, it will "prove" that the editors are free-thinking individuals rather than some kind of partisan cabal. I, for one, am I pretty pleased with how this list has been used so far. Just judging by the first archive, people have engaged in honest discussion ("can we actually rescue this?"), articles have been improved and kept, and other articles have been let go and eventually deleted, on their merits. That's the way ARS should function and it's the way the whole Wikipedia should function, ideally. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sometimes an editor may reasonably believe an article can be rescued but may not have the time to immediately to so themselves or the subject matter expertise. That's really a primary purpose of doing the listing. If doing so, though, they should explain what they think can be done in the listing. Many times I have improved articles without ever tagging them, when it was either a big job or I didn't have time, then I might template it. Maybe more of what we are looking for is a suggestion to "please be sure not to just swing by and vote !keep once an article is listed"?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• (driveby comment) at least now people are forced to explain why the article needs to be rescued. I hope this hinders the "let's tag this for rescue with no explanation of why it's notable" problem. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have been watching this page and the associated AFD discussions and IMO its being used responsibly in full accordance with our policies on collaboration and canvassing, Driveby comment by an evil deletionist. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies...

I reacted too quickly on this one, and nominated this page based on what I thought it was before really looking at how it was being used. On closer inspection, you're actually doing useful work here. Sorry for failing to WP:AGF. Robofish (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Robofish. Perhaps, on the bright side, you've insulated us from a coordinated deletion nomination for a bit.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Regular deletion only? What about speed deletes, prods for deletion, or redirects?

Should the Article Rescue Squadron only be about discussing articles which should be saved from deletion that are at AFD right now, or should we include those simply tagged for speedy delete or prodded for deletion? What about those which instead of deletion, had someone just replace them with a redirect? I tried to add such an article to the list and the person I am currently in disagreement with then removed it. [1] Opinions please? Isn't that the same as a deletion, since the article isn't likely to be seen by anyone now? A token amount of information may have been merged over, but most of it was still lost in this case. Other Wikiprojects concern themselves with things other than AFD of course, including redirects, etc. Dream Focus 03:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• If the person who reverted you isn't an ARS member, I find that to be disruptive. They should bring it up on the talk page. Oddcast was already listed with very good reason, there's really no reason to limit the rescue list to articles only in one deletion process.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• The rescue list can be used for any and all content to be considered for rescue, in my opinion, including Files for deletion, Categories for discussion, Miscellany for deletion, articles proposed for deletion, etc. It's imperative that people simply follow the instructions for posting, and include their rationale why the content should be retained on Wikipedia. I've retitled the tabbed header to "Content rescue list". Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Added to the Rescue list page: "ARS also functions to rescue other Wikipedia content perceived by editors as appropriate for the Encyclopedia. See Articles & content for an overview." Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, the title of this discussion is off topic, because this wasn't a speedy delete, a prod, or even a redirect. To be 100% clear: I reverted a spinout and merged an article back into a list. Also, this isn't the proper venue for discussing a policy change. Also, I wasn't notified and had to stumble onto this myself. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I was discussing a redirect here. And of course you'd find your way here, you posting yesterday in the section higher up, plus surely checking my contributions. Its not about you, its about the redirect. Stop taking things so personally. Most of the discussion is about the against consensus merger than took place two and half years ago. Dream Focus 16:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Posting to the ARS Rescue list

• Comment - The ARS rescue list can be used for any and all content to be considered for rescue, in my opinion, including Files for deletion, Categories for discussion, Miscellany for deletion, articles proposed for deletion, etc., as this is historically what ARS covers. It's imperative that people simply follow the instructions for posting, and include their rationale why the content should be retained on Wikipedia. See Articles & content for an overview of the content that ARS covers. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Also, note that there is significant precedent for Wikiprojects to maintain Cleanup lists. See This search for a search list of cleanup listings that numerous WikiProjects maintain. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Keerthi Sagathia can still use a bit of help

The Rescue Squadron successfully helped an obviously notable article be kept. [2] The article then had a very large chunk of it removed, which I have reverted and then added to. [3] As I mentioned on the talk page, I can search for the name of a song and the name of the film it was suppose to be in, and instantly get results. Finding the official website for a foreign language film and the credits to confirm things, is a bit of a chore though. Its odd this guy's official website doesn't list all the stuff he has worked on. Dream Focus 23:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hatted Entries

Just what are Hatted Entries? --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Closed discussions, that's all.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

article saved by Rescue Squadron before, may need a bit of work.

The List of female action heroes was at AFD months ago, and the ARS did participate in saving it. Since then, most of the content has been removed. Originally all of it was, but I put some of it back in to start with. One editor is insisting that things on the list must be referenced. If anyone knows of anywhere at all that list characters from anywhere as "female action heroes" please add a reference to their names on the list. Dream Focus 13:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• More correctly, Dream Focus refuses to even attempt to source anything. A few things get fact tagged (not removed, just tagged) and he gets bent out shape about it.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I found sources for some of those you tagged in the past, but don't really feel like doing every single item on the list, and once one thing is dealt with you just tag another or try to delete things outright without even checking their articles. [4] And I believe you are just picking away at the list as much as you can get away with. You did send this to AFD before [5] and try to delete it entirely, then went and eliminated every single item from the list after you failed to get that done, edit warring with other editors to keep removing everything. [6] I then added back in some, and others have been working at adding in additional things. You keep on challenging one thing after another and dragging out arguments about it. Example: Samus Aran you tagged and argued about. [7] I then removed your pointless tags asking you once again to read her article [8] Read her article. Many hero list have her on it. "Nintendo Power listed Samus as their third favourite hero, citing her bravery in the face of dangerous situations. Currently you are arguing if female characters in a video game where they fight the bad guys and save the entire world count as "heroes". More input for that specific issue would certainly be appreciated, since we already argued back and forth generating quite a large amount of text but not convincing each other. Dream Focus 00:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I sent it to AfD. So what? Yeah, in the past I made more demands. So what? Join the here and now. I have let many entries go by, unsourced, without removing or tagging. Then, when I tag a couple, you lose your mind. Sorry sport, you are on the wrong side of the policy here and the people here at ARS know full well that challenged content must be source. Your OR and personal opinions about what is obvious don't cut it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

How do we make a list like other Wikiprojects where you can see the AFDs opened for everything?

Other Wikiprojects have it where you can see a list of everything at AFD now, and can see the discussions opened up. It makes it easier to look through and find anything new to respond to, and to look over any new sources found which would convince you to comment on it. Have it separate than the current Rescue List page of course. Dream Focus 21:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Um, how is that not function served by either this rescue list, or AfD itself? pbp 19:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page has a section on the right entitled "Deletion Discussions" which provides all the lists any editor could want to see about deletions. Particular projects have entries about their project. For example Wikipedia:New_york_city#Rescue_squadron lists an article about New York City that was nominated for deletion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Like this. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Anime_and_manga All other Wikiprojects have this. We need to get it too. Easier to look through all the changes and see what to respond to. Dream Focus 15:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Those are based on Wikiproject talkpage tags which may not be a good match for this project. I think you have to do it manually or find some way of adding a template to the talk page that will have a category that will in turn trigger a bot to automatically list the articles. It would still require someone to manually add something to the article or its talkpage. Insomesia (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Smartpak

Smartpak is a new article that I reviewed today. Now the article is tagged with the Template:Db-g11 for Spam, saying that this article is promotional, and can be speedy deleted. The creator of the article objected on Talk:Smartpak, and the nominator replied. My question is whether the speedy deletion can continue when there is an objection, or not. Does it make any difference whether it is the creator, or someone else, who objects? I just want to understand the process, and I am not listing this article for ARS attention. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Just talk to the person who deleted it, and say you object. Anyone can object to a speed deletion and they have to restore it. Dream Focus 17:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The ARS is mentioned in an ANI

The nominate states the ARS has got to go, so I figured the ARS should be informed they are mentioned at this ANI. [9] Note, it isn't canvasing to contact all those involved in something. Dream Focus 22:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are you linking a discussion that was closed 5 days ago, and has been archived? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Because Dream's post is 5 days old? :-) --Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Doh! Why did I think it was new? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably because this was the bottom entry on the page when other changes were made today. In other words: You're human. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The tale of two humorists

A week ago, I noted that two comedy writers for Cracked.com that have a very similar profile for notability were both sent to AfD. I thought both are notable, but neither are slam dunks. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel O'Brien (comedian) was listed at ARS, and was kept. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wong (writer) was not listed, and was also kept. Unfortunately neither article has really been improved yet, but the ARS listing did not improperly cause one to be kept, and the other to be deleted. Hard to extrapolate from one example, but it was an interesting test.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I think it may be somewhat hard to compare the two, since Wong's notability seems to have been determined through his authorship of a bestselling book (and future basis for a movie), while O'Brien's seems to come through coverage of his contributions to the humor website, which is arguably more debatable. --Yaksar (let's chat) 09:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Its hard to come up with exactly similar situations, though. To me neither are especially notable. They are more notable than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Treacher but hard to say by how much.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Subject specific guideline for List articles

I believe we need a subject specific guideline page for list articles. Please look over my draft, and give me some feedback. User:Dream Focus/Wikipedia:Notability (lists) Dream Focus 12:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't we already have this? Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Common_selection_criteria Gaijin42 (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There are many unresolved issues with lists - see this recent talk for instance - and in particular with WP:CSC#2. Lists of non-notable items are regularly deleted under WP:IINFO even if the topic itself is notable as a group, making it impossible to create an index to all related content that's covered somewhere at Wikipedia as sections of larger articles. Diego (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Today's article for improvement is... why is that there?

I just ignore it usually, but this is a bit ridiculous. It current says List of furniture types. All furniture types that exist are already on there, and it doesn't really need anything else done with it, so how can you improve it? Are these things just chose randomly by one person? That doesn't really go well with Rescuing articles in need. Dream Focus 08:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

2011 AFL Central & North-West England League results for the Huddersfield Rams

2011 AFL Central & North-West England League results for the Huddersfield Rams is going to be deleted unless there are objections. What do ARS members think about it? If you object, do it in that talk page. If not, tell me here.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Jung Joon-Young

Jung Joon-Young this seems to be an article, but it is a complete mess. I don't know if it needs rescuing, deletion or strong advice/coaching for the editor. The Banner talk 22:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Didn't bother reading through it, just fixed a broken ref, used reflinks twice on it, and did proper section dividers. [10] Dream Focus 00:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it seems to be a legitimate article, perhaps even on a notable young Korean musician. Made a few copy-edits, tagged it... Much copyediting needed. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! Now it looks like an article, although with a lot of work to do. The Banner talk 13:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Jovan Bubonja

Is Jovan Bubonja any more or less worthy of keeping than any other association football (aka soccer) player?--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Watch

I've added the rescue squad list to my watchlist and hope to participate more in the future as time allows. Wondering if there is there a way to be notified only when a new case is added. -- GreenC 15:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles Rescued.

Friends, I just now provided a reference to the article Gezim Kasapolli and removed deletion tag from the article Nalini Krishan as it had references to reliable sources.Skr15081997 (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Newspaper search engines by country

Wikipedia:Newspaper search engines by country. This is a start. Any feedback or modifications appreciated. -- GreenC 14:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

removed to talk

This information is unduly complicated for the average person who is not familiar with wikipedia, removed and moved to talk. Headtransplant (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC) {{Article Rescue Squadron Code of Conduct}} :''For additional article improvement listings, check out this project's [[Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list/Archive 1|archives]] and listings at [[Wikipedia:Cleanup|WikiProject Cleanup]]'' This is a list and discussion of '''Wikipedia content for rescue consideration'''. When posting here, please be sure to: * First familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines for [[Wikipedia:Notability|topic notability]] and [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|identifying reliable sources]]. * Include specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia, and any ideas to [[Wikipedia:Be bold|improve]] the content. * Sign posts with four tildes '''<nowiki>~~~~.

• Place the {{subst:rescue list|~~~~}} template in Articles for deletion discussions, to notify editors about the listing here. The tag can be placed below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

The following templates can be used for articles listed here:

• *{{Find sources 3|Article name}} - Adds source search options
• *{{lagafd|Article name}} - Adds relevant links
• *{{lagafd|Article name|Article name (Nth nomination)}} - Likewise but for page nominated N ≥ 4 times

</nowiki>

If you remove this from the page again, I will report you for vandalism. The instructions are there for a reason, and your inability to understand them is not legitimate grounds to remove them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your comments, I added {{underconstruction}} to the page. Please give me an hour to work on the page if that is okay. Thank you. Headtransplant (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not 'okay' - if you edit the page again without prior consensus, I will report the matter - you have already violated Wikipedia rules on edit-warring. Any changes should be proposed here first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Shutting down the project

Since active members normally just look at this list page, I'll post the notice here to get noticed. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Propose_marking_Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_as_historical Some want to shut the project down claiming its dead, despite the fact people still come here and do great article saving work at times, like the example below. Share your opinions there please. Dream Focus 19:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Listing "results" on the rescue list creating a false impression of more articles being rescued than not?

A bunch of recent listings seem to be put on here without a real possibility of "rescuing" the articles, as they are not in any real danger. The problem with this as I see it is that after the AFDs are closed the "result" gets posted on this list, often without an elaboration, except in cases where an article actually was improved and therefore "rescued", which gives the false impression that more AFDs listed here end in "keep" because of the efforts of the Article Rescue Squadron, when in reality of the last nine listings (all listings for the past month): three (this, this and this) were never really in danger of being deleted, one was withdrawn by the nom for non-content reasons (which were glossed over in the "result" statement here), one was deleted (without said result being noted here despite two other results being of more-recently closed AFDs being listed here in the four days since), one probably will be deleted, one ended in "no consensus", one may have theoretically been in danger but ended in "keep" after a small majority !vote, one was closed as "snow keep" (with the meaning obvious in the original close statement that WP:SNOW carried its original meaning of "there is no way in hell that this discussion is going to lead to deletion, so keep by default for now, maybe delete once the snow melts", but this was taken out of context when the result was listed here), and one ended in "keep" apparently thanks to post-AFD improvements (which were noted in the listing here).

Basically if the four that should not have been listed here because they were never in any danger of being deleted (the first three plus the Ragland article which would have been impossible to delete with or without ARS's involvement) had not been listed, we would be in a situation where the majority of listings here would end with deletion or with keeping by default for non-ARS-related reasons. Obviously banning the listing of "probable keeps and articles that don't look to be in danger" is out of the question (G.scaringi, who was clearly acting in good faith albeit under a flawed assumption that Japanese/Chinese/Tibetan readers watch this page, was responsible for half of them and believed there was a legitimate possibility of the Namloyak article being saved and the HPAC article being deleted), maybe it would be a good idea to amend the list's rules to either

• (a) disallow listing of results or
• (b) disallow selective listing of results (read: listing keeps but not deletes), listing of results that differ from the actual close wording (adding extra emphasis by writing "KEEP" in all caps, listing as "speedy keep" without giving the reason for such, etc.), or listing the results of separate related discussions that were never actually listed here (even if they took place on the same AFD page)?

Cases like this could also be dealt with by requiring verbatim adherence to the closing statement.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Another problem I noticed while researching the above proposal was that a number of the "result" statements, including some of the problematic "revisionist" ones, are not signed or dated, meaning the only way to find the diffs retroactively is either to hope the edit summary included the name of the article or to trawl through every single edit to the list. Obviously if these statements are not banned, we should at least make it a rule that they must be signed and dated like other talk comments. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• One of the articles you say had no chance of being deleted was one you actually saved. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hyogo_Performing_Arts_Center had no one showing up who could search for references in Japanese until you arrived, you then convincing the nominator to withdraw. The only other person besides you and the nominator that participated showed up before you and stated "all we need is a Japanese speaker to verify that for us" after finding a lot of Google results, and then said KEEP after you arrived and showed proof of notability. It was nominated at 20:17, 20 May 2018 you posting first at 20:29, 27 May 2018, the seven day listing over, could've been closed at any moment. So yes, there was a high chance of it being deleted despite being a valid article, that happens quite often even with only one person saying it should be deleted. It was 19:26, 27 May 2018 when an editor who didn't comment in the AFD posted on the Rescue List "This article needs a Japanese speaking editor to establish notability. Can anyone help?" So the article was saved in the nick of time. So the list did make a difference then, as it has many times in the past. Note that six other Wikiprojects had been contacted the day it was nominated, including list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 01:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are you honing in on that one? It's the least "battleground-y" of all the listings, in that there was an amicable disagreement between me and the AFD nominator, I explained why they were wrong, and they closed their own AFD as speedy keep. That I noticed the AFD as a result of it being posted to the rescue list is actually irrelevant to my point here -- that some of the "results" listings, but specifically not that one, seem problematic -- and even there I didn't actually work to improve the article: I did a super-superficial source check and !voted in the AFD without ever editing either article. If I was talking about MFDing this page then maybe you could bring up the "Look! We wouldn't have an article on this notable topic if it weren't for ARS!" but what I'm suggesting here is completely unrelated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, as I told GS, I could have been just as easily reached by a neutrally-worded message on WT:JAPAN, as could a bunch of other editors with similar ability to check for Japanese sources to me. If this had been done (and GS's response implied that is how it will work next time), then yes, there would have been no need to post it here as the article would not have been in danger of being deleted as anyone who reads Japanese could stick the name of the article into GNews or see the Kotobank link at the top of a general Google search. (As an aside, it seems really weird that this would be honed in on as it totally derails the narrative that has been built around me over the last few months that I am a "deletionist". :P ) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

As I said, it was included at "list of Japan-related deletion discussions". They didn't respond. Dream Focus 09:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

No message was posted on the WP:JAPAN talk page. I don't normally monitor the Japan-sorted AFDs, but I noticed it here and would have on WT:JAPAN. Anyway, are you deliberately honing in on this non-issue as an excuse not to comment on my actual proposal, or what? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

If it wasn't an issue why bring it up? And I'm ignoring your proposal because its too ridiculous to bother with. [11] Oh no! I used capital letters, and that somehow in your mind sends a complicated message to everyone. Is there one person out there who agrees with this Hijiri88 that writing KEEP in capital letters had that effect on people? Dream Focus 10:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

If it wasn't an issue why bring it up? Because if I had selectively linked 8 of the 9 articles listed here in the last month rather than being comprehensive, you would have accused me of doing so deliberately (don't pretend you wouldn't have). And I'm ignoring your proposal because its too ridiculous to bother with. [diff that breaks syntax of tq template, but links to a comment I made that was not related to this proposal] Oh no! I used capital letters, and that somehow in your mind sends a complicated message to everyone. Umm ... that's not my proposal -- did you actually read my proposal? You didn't read the diffs I linked here, but you also didn't claim you had. Is there one person out there who agrees with this Hijiri88 that writing KEEP in capital letters had that effect on people? Umm ... so ... are you going to comment on my proposal at any time? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You mention the capital letters KEEP in your proposal: listing of results that differ from the actual close wording (adding extra emphasis by writing "KEEP" in all caps. And you explained why on the other discussion thread so I linked to it. As for your (don't pretend you wouldn't have), I don't have to pretend, since its the truth, I would not have mentioned that since there was no reason to do so. I'm not some obsessed lunatic who follows someone around Wikipedia commenting on every little thing they do, or have ever done, certain everyone is out to get me, and arguing nonstop about nothing. Dream Focus 14:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, I was required to mention the capital letters in my proposal because I was addressing every listing in the last month indiscriminately. As for your continued gross personal accusations against me ... maybe you should try ANI? It's rather inappropriate to make comments like that on a WikiProject talk page, on like three separate AFDs, and even a few article talk pages. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Note that if something is deleted, you can tell because the name of it is now in red letters, impossible not to notice. So no reason to state the obvious. Anyone could post that it was deleted if they wanted to. Dream Focus 01:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

(With regard to your edit summary) I didn't actually say there was a conspiracy. And if it's standard prodedure not to list results when the pages are deleted, how do you explain this? It looks to me like deliberate revisionism: the article was garbage, should been deleted, should never have been listed here, and yet you and Andrew both auto-!voted "keep" with completely bogus rationales, but you wrote here that actually the article wasn't deleted at all because all the content was still located at another page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

We did not auto-vote, we gave legitimate reasons why it should exist. And as I stated "It closed as delete, but the basic information is at Dark Lady already. Just lost a paragraph". Why should I not mention that the same information is found elsewhere, minus the opening paragraph? Dream Focus 09:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment on the proposal or don't comment

So ... were you retroactively changing you !vote to Redirect Unnecessary content-fork. The redlink is still there if you want to implement that. You very clearly argued in the AFD that the page was not an OR content-fork, and in the process of doing so you linked several sources that you had clearly just Googled up without reading them, as one of them used both "dark" and "lady" as consecutive adjectives in a poorly-written sentence. Your argument was equivalent to !voting in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Working class hero based on a bunch of sources you found that discussed fictional works whose protagonists ("heroes") were working-class: clumsily pieced together as an excuse to justify an auto-!vote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, what is your opinion on my proposal? (a), (b) or neither, and if neither do you have an alternate proposal or a rationale for opposing? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem here. It's fine to list outcomes of AfDs here, and whether or not something gets capitalized is too trivial to care about. I don't see a need to change anything in this regard. I would not want to see anyone argue for "keep" on a page that has been nominated and does not merit keeping, if it were done just to "win" an "argument" or whatever (and I'm not claiming that this has happened), but that's unrelated to listing outcomes here. Nor do I see anything misleading in the sense of making it look like taking credit for the keeping of a page. Keeping a page that should be kept is a good thing, and it doesn't matter who takes credit for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• I think we are still experimenting on form so I don't think either should be "rules" (I would say procedure). The results are imperfect feedback but still useful and should be done for all listed. I copied what was written from the close since that was easier and accurate. Not sure if closer signature should be included, if so the results could be quoted or bulleted. Adding one's own signature is already in the procedure, but I often forget and there is no autosign. Adding other summaries (reasons, lessons, thanks,…) are okay for feedback. Content of the Rescue page should only be about how to rescue individual articles: initial templates (find sources,…), how to improve the article, methods of rescuing (like Hijiri88's posting in related project WT:JAPAN, finding in another encyclopedia, or searching in another language), and idiosyncrasies of that article (alternative names,…). Seeing the methods in action reinforces learning. All other discussions (why the article should be deleted, side comments, personal attacks,…) should be on the AfD, this talk page, somewhere else, or not at all. That's my opinion. StrayBolt (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

RFC about proposed guideline amendment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawn by nominator. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Should the following text (or a variant thereof) be added to this page's guidelines: An editor who has already commented in an AFD discussion should not post the article under discussion to the rescue list, and an uninvolved editor who posts such an article here must refrain from commenting in the AFD discussion themselves except to issue a notification that the article has been posted to the rescue list. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Per below, this proposal is withdrawn. It was clearly meant in good faith and would have solved some of the canvassing problems like at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swamp monster, so I definitely don't feel I deserved the level of abuse some of this project's members have been giving me over it, but hopefully this will be the end of at least the harassment and personal attacks. Responding to said abuse has unfortunately taken up more time than I would have liked, and I didn't get around to figuring out how to formally withdraw a premature RFC, so if someone else could do that for me it would be most appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I cannot believe that year after year the "ARS canvassing" trope is still resurfacing. This page is no canvassing: deletionists are welcome to put it on their watchlist and hawk ARS-listed AFDs as much as inclusionists. That said, the rationale behind such a bizarre requirement baffles me. Why should one list the article here and not comment on the AfD or viceversa? By which logic should this avoid !vote-stacking (at most, it would get 1 comment less)? Can't one have an articulated opinion on the AfD and ask ARS to have a look at it? The only rationale I can see is to force editors to choose between ARS notification and AFD involvement, basically crippling both. This is unnecessary and detrimental to the project. --cyclopia^speak! 00:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Attendance at AfD discussions is very weak nowadays and so it's good to encourage participation. Typically someone who posts an entry in the rescue list does so because they have looked at the article, reckon that it has potential and so want assistance in getting improvements made. This is reasonable because AfDs have a tight deadline and article improvement is hard work. Editors who have worked on a topic and become familiar with it should be free to comment in the discussion, like any other editor of the article. People who work on an article should obviously be free to !vote on its fate as discouraging improvement of the article would be disruptive because it would harm the encyclopedia. Andrew D. (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose No. Just... no. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This is just total nonsense. There is no reason the person trying to get help improving the article wouldn't participate in the AFD. Dream Focus 04:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: Yeah, but what about cases like this and this where the poster apparently has no ideas for how the articles can be improved, and basically just link to articles that happen to be at AFD? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Some people will check it out and if it can be helped, it will be. No restriction on who can ask for help here. Like all of Wikipedia, everyone is volunteer bases. Dream Focus 04:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as an unnecessary rule and complication. Legacypac (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support It's been several years since I was very active at AFD, but at that time ARS was pretty openly an a cancass board for raving inclusions--or at least that was my perception. Maybe it's not anymore--or maybe it still is, I haven't been paying much attention lately--either way the proposal seems like a reasonable suggestion for preventing canvassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yilloslime (talk • contribs)

  What about other Wikiprojects? Do you think they should do the same? Dream Focus 02:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as this goes against the function and purpose of this list. Furthermore, the NOM is posting multiple comments that make it obvious they have an WP:AGENDA against this project's goals; trying to eliminate its interference entirely by accusing it of WP:CANVAS and asking for its removal. Quite the opposite. It takes far more work than casting a simple, thoughtless !vote as so many deletionists do. We need the help. To do article rescue, it takes reading, research and a literate response. I can only speak for myself, but before I comment, I usually add sources; mostly sources that should have been added by ANYBODY who did a WP:BEFORE. But they didn't get added; not by the article creator (possibly a novice editor) and more importantly not by the NOM, who if they can figure out how to nominate, should be skilled enough to try Google first. Still we are at a huge disadvantage because there are so many, unsubstantiated, repetitive, serial delete !votes to counteract that get posted on *fD lists on a daily basis. It takes one or two minutes to leave a path of destruction of such thoughtless !votes across a day's *fD list; no rationale required. "Me too." It could take considerably longer, possibly hours to research to help one needy article. How much knowledge is being lost every day? At times, it is the few heroic members of this project that give any glimmer of hope to retain even a small percentage of the content that gets attacked and later removed every single day. Wikipedia is not censored, except, of course, when content is deleted. Trackinfo (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@TrackInfo: Actually, my "agenda" is in favour of this project's (stated) goals: fixing problem articles, not !vote-stacking. The problem is that it is being used by involved editors to canvas people who agree with them, and are very obviously not interested in fixing the articles (they have been aggressively refusing to do so). That said, if you have read all my comments, I have no idea why you would bother !voting at all: I clearly said I would withdraw it unless it started garnering support. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I have no involvement in the articles you are nominating. My reaction is to the generic deletionist mindset. Every day I encounter overt stupidity, an echo chamber of serial mindless !votes, deceptive, secret tactics and wikilawyers who make a joke of confusing orderly discussion. What suffers is wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: I'm nominating articles now? What? That's news to me. I'm just trying to prevent canvassing and create a better encyclopedia -- this project is being, and has in the past been used to canvas keep !votes with the (false, in every case I checked, and the last one nominated by me was three years ago) veneer of "We are improving the articles to bring them up to standard". I don't consider myself a "deletionist" so I would appreciate your not painting me with the same brush as whoever it is you were actually talking about with your "AGENDA" talk above: I would appreciate your striking everything you wrote about me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, aggressively advocating for their deletion, you were not the NOM. That and your attitude toward this list clearly puts you in the deletionist camp. I don't otherwise know you. I make no assertions about you. But protecting this list is important. It gives us the opportunity to get other minds involved in rescuing articles. No editor can be an expert in all subject matters. I certainly know nothing about Poke. I have said in my user page for years, if you don't know what you are talking about, butt out. But that is not the case in these mindless !votes. So this list is a place to call for help; people who know how and where to find sources in unfamiliar subjects. Thank you for withdrawing your proposal. Trackinfo (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: Again, no. It's been years since I "aggressively advocated" for any article's deletion. You are digging yourself into a hole here. I haven't even !voted delete in any current AFD. Please stop making these ridiculous accusations: accusations of misbehaviour made without evidence are personal attacks. Consider this your final warning. If my already-withdrawn RFC gets closed before you have a chance to strike your personal attacks, I will accept an apology and retraction (in the form "You are not a deletionist, you were not pushing a sinister agenda, you are not stupid, you have not been aggressively advocating for any article's deletion...") on my user talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW, opposition to blatant canvassing and a distrust of insincere claims to wanting to fix articles rather than delete them doesn't "put" anyone in "the deletionist camp". You really need to drop this "us vs. them" attitude: we are all supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia, not "fight" for our "camp" against "the other camp". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• This page has in the past been used for disruptive canvassing by editors who were involved in AFD discussions, and the same (or a weaker form of the same) appears to have happened recently. Whether or not such canvassing works (i.e., results in a clear consensus to "keep") would appear to be irrelevant, as AFDs can be closed as "no consensus" when the result is a 3-2 split in favour of deletion (even by non-admins without the authority to close as "delete"). Since the purpose of this project is for article improvement and not for !vote-stacking, this amendment should be uncontroversial, but since it's a hard and fast "rule" I'm proposing I figured doing so through an RFC would be better than doing so unilaterally. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• The proposer explained in this discussion that he's nursing a grudge about a 5 year old AFD. They should please see WP:STICK and WP:GETOVERIT. Andrew D. (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: I seem to recall the opposite: I explained that I had been unaware of what had happened in the AFD five years ago until this week, and that I was confident that if I brought the page to AFD again now, without the worry about JoshuSasori socks hounding me off the project immediately the result would be different, so I was not holding a grudge. It should also be noted that, when asked to explain why you continued to expressed credulity towards the fringe claims espoused in that article (which is not something that was resolved five years ago and I am holding a grudge over -- your first involvement was this week), you (repeatedly) dodged the question. This seems like deliberate gaming of the system in order to prevent articles from being deleted/merged based solely on personal principle rather than correct adherence to WP:NOT. It should also be noted that the immediate impetus for my proposal coming now (rather than, say, six months from now) was not the discussion on VPMISC, but your own recent violation of the guidelines that are already on this page: you auto-opposed several AFDs (being the first to do so) and posted them here without [i]nclud[ing] a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia, [or] any ideas to improve the content instead posting joke-y meta remarks, meaning that your posting them here served no purpose to the project beyond notifying watchers of this page that those articles were at AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I am no longer seeing this proposal going anywhere, but I don't want to withdraw it for at least another few hours since I publicized the RFC in several prominent fora and I don't want to give the impression of deliberately creating bogus proposals, annoying a bunch of people with them, and then withdrawing them before the majority of them get a chance to even tell me how I am wrong. If no one supports the proposal before tonight I'll probably strike it (and try to figure out how to prematurely close my own RFC).

I don't actually agree with the reasoning why my proposal wouldn't work (especially the ones that essentially amount to ad hominems against me), but I wouldn't be a good Wikipedian if I didn't know how to agree to disagree and be civil about it. At least one of the early "oppose" !votes (ironically the one that makes the least sense to me) is from a great contributor for whom I have the utmost respect, so I don't see this as any kind of "battle" between "deletionists" (or "haters") and "inclusionists", merely as a procedural matter over which I have a disagreement with some other contributors.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• @SarekOfVulcan: I am a bit surprised to see you opposing this proposal, and have half a mind to quote Captain Picard: "Sarek of Vulcan would never be afraid ..." :P Jokes aside, could you elaborate on what the specific problem with my proposal is? As demonstrated immediately above, the last several entries to be added to the rescue list serve no purpose but to tell watchers of the list that there are AFDs open, and were made by someone who had already strongly expressed a desire not to see the articles deleted/merged/userfied/etc.: yes, maybe strictly enforcing the guidelines that are already here (in this case, that you need to provide a coherent reason for not keeping and improving the pages) would make my proposed addition redundant, but still... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• @Cyclopia: But is hav[ing] an articulated opinion on the AfD and ask[ing] ARS to have a look at [the problems with the article] what has been happening the past 24 hours? It looks more like it's an editor who already clearly doesn't want the pages to be delete posting incoherent "joke-y" links to articles that are at AFD, with no purpose beyond getting potentially sympathetic editors to weigh in. The Dragonite article, for example, should be re-redirected automatically per BRD: the redirect was stable for four years, in accordance with a long-standing consensus regarding standalone entries on random pokemans: Andrew posted a link to a completely irrelevant humour essay about wikidragons, with no explanation of how the article could be improved to address the AFD concerns. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Repinging User:Cyclopia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, at the time I posted most of the above, a few different AFDs had been mixed up in my mind. The Dragonite AFD would not actually be affected by my proposal, as Andrew had not (and still has not) edited the AFD page. Everything I wrote is still accurate and relevant, though, as I didn't actually say Andrew had commented on the Dragonite AFD, and he had !voted in the swamp monster AFD, and the content of his notification of that one is just as irrelevant (no ideas for improvement of the article, just a link to an article currently at AFD, and a joke-y comment), and in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtues (number and structure) which he stealth-linked in an entry on a separate page. I'm posting this clarification here so no one accuses me of deliberately distorting things. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Just a brief note for the members of ARS... I think you do great work, BUT... because you focus on improving (or “rescuing”) articles AFTER they have been nominated for deletion, you will continue to be accused of canvassing (rightly or wrongly). To avoid such accusations, I would suggest a shift in the way you operate... to a focus on improving (or “rescuing”) articles BEFORE they are nominated for deletion. If you searched for articles needing improvement BEFORE they get nominated (thus preventing the nominations in the first place) your efforts would be much more appreciated and you would be lauded by the broader community. In other words, be PROACTIVE rather than REACTIVE. Just a thought for you to consider... All the best, and keep up the good work. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  Check the edit history of people. Many go around working on articles that aren't up for deletion all the time, even creating new articles. This wikiproject is to help rescue articles that are about to be deleted. Dream Focus 16:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I am sure they do... but what members of this project do as individuals does not change the perception that the ARS project (AS a project) is reactive rather than proactive. It is that reactive focus that opens the door to unfair accusations of canvassing. To avoid such accusations, the PROJECT (as a project, rather than as individuals) needs to focus on being more proactive. My comments were not about what you people do as individuals, but how your actions are perceived as a group. Of course, if you are content with your current reputation, you can always continue as you are. I am simply offering an outsider’s view and my advice. ‘Nuff said. Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I'd be interested in any examples you could give of articles ARS recently "rescued" by doing the good work of cleaning them up and fixing their problems. To me it looks like they come in, !vote down the AFD, then walk away without ever fixing the article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mottainai and the current Swamp monster entry on this project's page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope... not getting drawn into your petty squabbling... all I wanted to do was share an outsider’s thought about how this project could be more effective and avoid accusations of canvassing. Nothing more, nothing less. Blueboar (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• And Hijiri88, stop playing the victim here. You went posting all over the place making your ridiculous accusations, arguing nonstop with people, and got upset others didn't see things your way. The mention of the Swamp monster on the rescue page brought over a few who said keep, and others like yourself who want to delete it. Kindly stop making the canvassing accusation. Dream Focus 16:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: Why can't you drop the off-topic personal attacks against me? your ridiculous accusations -- this meme is quite popular these days, but no evidence has ever shown up. arguing nonstop with people -- where? It looks like you're the one arguing nonstop at the swamp monster AFD. got upset others didn't see things your way -- where did I get upset? Where did things not go my way? Why did you choose to come back here eight hours after the proposal was already withdrawn and closed and get another string of digs in at be? If you don't drop the stick here, an ANI thread will be coming soon. You've been warned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your ridiculous accusations about canvassing, which the ARS does not do. You dragged this argument out in various places. I think I was clear enough. Dream Focus 22:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine, so what if I said you don't canvass, but you don't seem to be very happy about requests that you fulfill your project's stated goal of "improving the encyclopedia" either?

Anyway, the claim to ARS not canvassing seems dubious, when you suddenly showed up at VPM, a forum you had never edited before, to attack me having never interacted with me directly, and only once indirectly at the AFD that I happened to link there, five years ago, and when I asked you if you'd received an email notification that said AFD was mentioned at the village pump you blanked my message and attacked me in the edit summary. You still haven't answered that question, by the way. Even if ARS does not canvass !votes for AFDs, I find it hard to believe that it was just a pure coincidence that you happened to show up there at that exact time: there was no notification on your talk page, on the talk page of this project, or anywhere else I can see that you might have noticed it, and you weren't pinged.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not attack you in the edit summary, I simply looked at your edit history and your block record, and decided I didn't want to bother with you. My message at [12] was "I don't really want to waste time with you. You seem to argue a lot with everyone, and its just not worth the effort)" You also posted a message quite recently at another user's talk page, and they just erased it and ignored you also [13]. Dream Focus 23:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

You still haven't answered: I asked a legitimate question (twice) and you've dodged it both times. Anyway, I'm done with you. Go improve the encyclopedia. That's what I intend to do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't answer because it doesn't matter. Sometimes I check on what others are doing, click the contributions of the editor, see if anything interesting is going on. And if you want to improve the encyclopedia, remember that that involves working on articles not just trying to delete them. Dream Focus 23:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

As I told another editor a little above here, I haven't tried to delete an article in years, but I guess that's good advice in general so I'll follow it. And I think you missed my point: I wasn't asking how you knew I "argue a lot with everyone"; I was asking how you came across the VPM discussion. You couldn't have been monitoring my contributions because you had no idea who I was (even if you remembered the 2013 AFD, it was opened under a sock account, Sarumaru the Poet (talk · contribs)). But if we're done here that's good. I'm going to go continue listing all the MYS poets. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Blueboar: There are numerous projects focussed on article improvements such as WP:CLEANUP and WP:TAFI. The specific focus of the ARS is rescue from imminent danger. While we have lots of nominal members, few of them do much and so we don't have the resources to improve anything and everything. Motivation is the key and a tight focus is good for this, IMO. As an example of a more successful project see WP:WOMRED which has good participation because it has a strong focus. Andrew D. (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

"He who defends everything, defends nothing"

— Frederick the Great

@Blueboar:Thank you for your support and suggestions and agree with @Andrew Davidson:'s response. (I'm late for the discussion.) I was attempting "rescues" before I had even heard about ARS. Every project's deletion list is filled with little calls for help. Is every nomination a form of canvessing? Now I found this list. Sometimes I'm in task-driven mode (proactive), which includes creating new or adding to articles. Other times I'm in deadline-driven (reactive), trying to save articles in time by finding sources. We all know there is a big need for both. I usually find it easier to improve an existing article than starting from scratch. Using a fire department analogy (thanks to all those real firefighters!), you can do all the prevention you can, but you still want a fire department. Yet, you can't save everything, maybe there are pieces that can be salvaged. For WP, we also have the luxury of choosing and often I don't know if it will pass "Notability" when starting out; so I'm likely to vote, if I do, close to the deadline. So be it accidental, arson, controlled burn, or a false alarm, it is good to respond. StrayBolt (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@GreenC: I don't see how restoring the above could be justified: I withdrew my proposal as a result of the harassment I was receiving from several of the more militant members of this project, and all but one of them continued to comment, inappropriately, even after the proposal was closed. If I recall correctly, I tolerated it at the time (even though I would have been wholly justified in blanking continued inappropriate discussion in a closed thread) because I thought protesting would just make things worse; but someone coming on four months later and saying you agree with the editor whose closest thing to an on-topic comment was this strikes me as needlessly disruptive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

You are still playing the victim claiming anyone who disagrees with you is "militant" and giving you "harassment". Anyone can post here if they wish, you can't get whinny every time someone disagrees with you. You erasing someone's comment was not acceptable, so GreenC reverting you was justified. Dream Focus 23:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

You see, the above is exactly why I never wanted this discussion reopened, not in February immediately after User:Redrose64 closed it (pinging in a perhaps-vain attempt to get this whole thing "re-closed") and definitely now more than four months later. DF is the worst of the editors who engaged in vicious personal attacks against me above (in fact has refused to focus on content in any of my dozen or so interactions with him since), but he wasn't the only one, so solving this by opening an ANI thread to get him blocked (something that would not be difficult when he writes things like this on a near-daily basis) would not actually fix the problem with continuously commenting on this RFC months after it was withdrawn. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

And there he goes again. Will someone please click on the link he provided and tell him he is blocking out reality? This is ridiculous. He goes to that AFD and starts arguing with me about unrelated things. Anyway, Hijiri88, you don't like this project, you already stated in multiple places you want it retired, you just argue with everyone in it constantly, why do you keep coming back here? Dream Focus 00:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

So... first you tell me I am out of [my] mind -- by itself an outrageous personal attack for which you could be blocked -- then when asked to retract it you refuse, and now when I link the diff of said refusal you say I am blocking out reality? Questioning other users' mental states is never acceptable, and continuing to do so despite multiple warnings is going to get you blocked. Seriously. Take the hint. I'm being much more merciful here than I have any reason to be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You have no interest in this Wikiproject, you never have, you are just here to argue with people and spread lies about it. As for your questionable mental state, I would really like others to weigh in on this. Does anyone else believe everyone is out to get him when they disagree with him, or is he just imagining things? The only outrageous personal attacks I see are when you claim I'm guilty of plagiarism because I didn't paraphrase quite well enough in a few places. Either go to ANI or stop making idle threats. You know you are the one who kept following me around for awhile there, I trying to avoid you. You don't like this Wikiproject, you have no reason to be here. Dream Focus 01:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Google Talk to Books

I'd never seen or heard of Google Talk to Books. It seems pretty useful for Wikipedia purposes. It takes search to the next level, using AI to better find results that may not be in a keyword search. -- GreenC 15:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

There is too much WP:ABF in that section title, and there is already a standard notice of the MfD at the top of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The title has since been changed, which is good. It was originally "Deletionist revenge". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I call them for what they are. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Judge for yourselves. Res ipsa loquitor. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment *Ongoing related discussion at ANI

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list

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. Rhymes with "no collusion." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Result was keep. Per the closer: "The result of the discussion was: keep. Heavy snow in forecast" 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate entries

I propose removing the following entries which are not focused on article improvement:

1. "Winter is coming" "I've just snow-closed this but it may just be the start and I don't want to get too involved for fear of spoilers as I've been saving the last episode. ARS members may want to patrol the topic like members of the Night's Watch on the Wall."
2. Battle Bag "What's in your battle bag when you turn out to rescue another article? It's good to think of a shortlist of policies, references and sources with a stock of canned text and templates for the recurring issues we encounter. We should start another tab for this here, as a checklist of good ideas and resources."
3. "Crush, Crumble, Chomp" "I've not seen the new Godzilla movie yet but suppose that the local real estate takes a pounding. Meanwhile, here in Wikipedia, someone is trying to knock down the towers of Jersey City!"

–dlthewave ☎ 18:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Everything posted appeals to a desire to save articles from deletion which implies article improvement. -- GreenC 18:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments like "someone is trying to knock down the towers of Jersey City" imply that the deletion nomination, not the state of the article, is the problem. This seems to be an attempt to "save" articles by bringing in Keep !votes, not a call to improve them. –dlthewave ☎ 19:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, you are projecting your own reactions on the posted listings. You have zero evidence of the poster's intent. Nor do you have evidence of other user's reactions or intent.

Your unilateral removal of these was WP:Vandalism. Don't do it again! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Has anyone gone there and posted KEEP? Those articles are rather short. I went to one and suggested merging it with another article. So claiming that someone posting there leads to people going to keep, is incorrect and in bad faith. I've added things to the list before that got zero people to vote in the AFD at all. See Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#Who_Will_Rock_You for an example of that. If no one can find sources the article gets deleted. And if you have a problem with that one editor who writes colorful descriptions when he post something, why not discuss it with him on his talk page? Dream Focus 19:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I do indeed see two project participants who !voted "Keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle bag without taking steps to improve the article. –dlthewave ☎ 22:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I did search for reliable sources but couldn't find anything new to add to the article. I did discuss without saying keep at first, then two days later when someone mentioned a category existed for things that were similar I said to KEEP and rename it and include those things to make a proper article. I didn't just show up and say KEEP and nothing else, nor do I ever do that. Dream Focus 09:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• dlthewave I too believe it is vandalism to revdel a user's additions - especially during a time when an ANI is open. At its worst it is vandalism and at best ill-advised. I sent you a dove anyway because I hope we find ourselves on the same side in the future User:Lightburst 20:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lightburst: Thanks, I appreciate the thought. I understand why the deletion wasn't well received and I hope we can move past that to discuss the propriety of the entries themselves. –dlthewave ☎ 02:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that those entries violated the code of conduct as it existed before I even knew ARS was a thing. Editors posting here are, and apparently always have been, obliged to provide a valid reason for keeping the articles in question. The "winter is coming" one was not "appeal[ing] to a desire to save articles from deletion which implies article improvement", since those articles are all WP:ALLPLOT content-forks of pre-existing lists, with no evidence having ever been provided that the topics are notable out-of-universe. (And that's something I was also saying before I knew what ARS was.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• Those instructions have no standing as policy or guideline and, per WP:NOTLAW, should be toned down if they don't represent what actually happens here. They are currently self-contradictory in that they want a reason why the topic should be kept but that the notification should be neutral. Urging reasons to keep is not neutral, is it, and so you can't have it both ways. My view is that listing an entry here is self-explanatory – it is implicitly a request that the topic should be considered for rescue. My usual approach is to suggest that working on the topic would be interesting and/or educational. It is a big challenge to work on an article which is at risk of deletion within a week and so editors need reasons to take this on. Andrew D. (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

None of these entries, including the new one "Epistemology of Wikipedia", provide any sort of rationale for why the article should be kept or ideas for improvement. How would editors be motivated to improve an article if you don't provide any of this information? It may not be your intent, but these entries often result in a barrage of "Keep" !votes with no actual improvement to the article. –dlthewave ☎ 15:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason to tell people "need help finding reliable sources to prove this article passes the notability guidelines" every single time. They know that already. Its what the Wikiproject is all about. And please show where this "barrage" of keep votes has appeared. The current list has articles that had no one go to vote keep in them and got deleted. No one ever votes without a reason. Dream Focus 19:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there are votes without a reason. Keep & expand per above. No compliance with [[WP:Before]]., Keep for reasons cited above. No compliance with [[WP:Before]]. Saying as per above is not a policy based vote, its laziness. It the equivalent of saying "I want the article kept, so any reason someone can come up with is a good reason." And WP:BEFORE is not a reason to keep unless you can actually prove that there are sources and even then accusing someone of not complying with BEFORE is a WP:PERSONALATTACK and does not assume good faith.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Both of those links are the same editor,7&6=thirteen, who also added content to the articles in question. [14] [15] Dream Focus 01:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

That I add content and vote at AFDs is my privilege. And the reasons and comments are factual, and get to say what I want. I note that overwhelmingly, when I get involved, the articles are improved (many go from WP:AFD to WP:DYK), and are Keeps. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. So there is a lot more article improvement going on that you ignore. If those who propose WP:AFDs find all the relevant sources that wind up in the article, WP:Before would not be an issue. I don't presume to tell you how to vote of what to say at AFD discussions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes. I suppose you actually did WP:Before here.x If you did it, why did you AFD Hudson Greene? Given the present state of the article, indeed why have you not withdrawn the nomination? But that' a matter for your conscience; ride that into the ground if you will. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do no unilaterally remove other people's entries from the list. If there is a dispute, this is a consensus-based encyclopedia. Take a quick straw poll to see where consensus is about an entry. -- GreenC 01:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)