I'm not suggesting that every rescue should get a barnstar but it does seem like honoring those who have saved an article could use some recognition. I think the first step might be expanding the list of articles rescued, which, of course, means we figure a good way to track those. Then list them and possible evaluate if someone(s) greatly improved the article vs, the AfD discussion was generally for keeping. Along with the list would be our suggested guideline for issuing barnstars as well as the barnstar gallery. Banjeboi 22:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rawr. I want MOAR barnstars! I think this is a good idea. I know User:Ecoleetage hands them out now and again for people who rescue his nominations from deletion (he's very open about being proven wrong when it means an article will be saved and improved), you should see if he wants to help. Protonk (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at clearing up the barnstar section above first then proceed from there. Banjeboi 00:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well as often happens the timing was rather dismal, User:Ecoleetage just went on wikibreak due to RfA drama but, assuming he returns, (I hope), we can invite him in. I've set-up the barnstars on the mainpage and the current system of listing articles currently tagged seems the best way of tracking. In addition to the list of rescued articles there's at least two dozen awaiting to be added - all could get barnstarred. Banjeboi 06:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of creating a sub article of this article which lists great AfD debates, as examples for future editors attempting to save articles.

For example:

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Past successful deletion debates

I have been trying to teach editors how to debate in Articles for Deletion. I realized that Articles for Deletion examples would be very helpful for new editors, but I think I need help. travb (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, ARS is not about the debates. It's about the articles. The best rescues are those that makes the debate moot. Taemyr (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel uncomfortable going down that road. We should find ways to encourage editors to understand the threshold of notability and also how to reolve real concerns of article creep. For instance, many of the fictional item AfD'd would be fine in a list format rather than separate articles. While I don't tend to delete items I also am concerned that we are getting a lot of articles that aren't notable because we are advertising ARS in your tips talkpage postings. There are already some good resources along the lines of what you're asking about but before they go in guns blazing they should take a breath and consider if an article is indeed appropriate at this point. A cleaned article about a non-notable subject is still an article in trouble. Having stated all that it may not be a bad idea to start up a thread on what works/what doesn't and see if any ideas pop from that. -- Banjeboi 03:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benjiboi :) I started a general article: User:Inclusionist/Del. I am trying to teach new editors how to survive in an AfD discussion.

RE: "Past successful deletion debates" I will do something unaffiliated with this project, I don't want to ruffle any feathers. Maybe I can solicit advice from editors to share some of their most incredible war stories.

I already checked all of the AfDs involving WP:NALBUMS, WP:NSONGS, which is on User:Inclusionist/Del. But would like more specific success stories

travb (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see and help with User:A Nobody/Article Rescuers' Hall of Fame, which I have created in my userspace for now. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, I think it should be a subsection in the list of Article Squadron members. Maybe instead (or also) have the list by article, not by person because

1. Its about the articles, not the editors
2. Often several Article Rescue Squadron editors Tag team to save an article, not just one editor. travb (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. We had something similar to this at DYK, which later resulted in some very heated discussions. It'd be better to list them by articles, since otherwise it might look like attention seeking (which some people would not like that much). Chamal ^talk 04:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem that I have with listing this by article, and not editor (and I write this as someone who has had next-to-zero involvement in AfD, so I'm not trying to get in the "Hall" myself):

• From a practical standpoint, listing by articles will likely yield a list of incredibly awkward length. I mean, what if the Football Hall of Fame listed all the "Great Plays", or even just the "Great Games"? Can you imagine how huge the number of "members" would be?
• And that's another thing: It just doesn't feel right. I mean, Halls of Fame have members. Doesn't it seem silly to have "Great Plays" in a Hall of Fame rather than players? Of course, they're related, (the greatest players make great plays more often than others) but we create Halls to honor people, not things. Unschool 03:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Personally I'm conflicted on this. Many many articles are rescued without our involvement, that is not true for DYK, which is a more vetted process with defined parameters. Some feel a merger, or perhaps anything that isn't a delete, is a form of a rescue but I'm not sure I agree with that. Also this list will be huge and I'm not sure that makes sense. Perhaps we could simply have a list, not call it "Hall of fame", and use it to note when someone has been recognized for rescue work. I'll point to DGG who has undoubtably been instrumental in many saves but usually doesn't get credited as they mainly present sound perspective in AfD. Perhaps ditch the Hall of fame and treat more NPOV as just a list of note. What it is used for can be sussed out after more discussion. -- Banjeboi 22:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With John W. Rogers, Jr. yesterday being promoted to Good Article, and counting Manny Harris, Nate Parker, Toni Preckwinkle and Tory Burch, I have created articles for five formerly deleted articles and taken them to WP:GA-class. I am making the announcement since I only have one rescue barnstar and there seem to be several different ones.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been told that some WP:ARS purists might be a bit taken aback by my claim. I should clarify my recovery involvment. I have successfully saved Thomas Wilcher at WP:AFD. I was unsuccessful with Toni Preckwinkle on its second AFD. However, I took both articles to WP:GA status. All of the other articles were deleted without my involvement mostly through CSD prior to my recreation and promotion to GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which barnstar would be appropriate, but very nice job. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! That is wonderful. Three cheers for Fisher! You are an inspriation and a model for all wikipedians to follow. travb (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created a new category Category:Deleted article recreated and advanced to Good Articles Class and template Template:Rescued for use on recreated good articles talk pages. I added this template to the five articles of TonyTheTiger, and I am going to solicit whether other editors know of any other articles which were deleted then reached good article status too. Ikip (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I have removed it again from Nate Parker, since the deleted article was about a different person and was correctly deleted. The Tory Burch article which was deleted was pure spam, with the wonderful closing line "Information provided by Brandhabit.com", and so was also a perfectly correct deletion. Only one of the other deletions was after an actual AfD discussion, so really relevant here. Fram (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, Dragon kill points, which was previously deleted with much fanfare, is now a Good article. Protonk (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you brought this up Protonk, I was about to mention this here. Ikip (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnel Running was a logn ago (but very visible) rescue - see its AFD for how this evolved (if examples are needed). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found in my work with new editors, that the majority of new editors are welcomed with warning templates and impersonally nasty messages, saying subtly, and not so subtly, that "your contributions are not welcome" In other words, veteran editors can be real &*&(^ to new users. What I love about this project is we are not only about saving articles, we are about, indirectly, retaining new users. I just created a new template/barnstar morph: User:Ikip/t which can be placed on new editors talk pages:

==Welcome==

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		Hello, Article Rescue Squadron, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like wikipedia and decide to stay. I am sorry that there are so many impersonal warning messages on your talk page. There are many editors who feel that your hard work here is important and valuable, especially me. Need help? If you are looking for help, you can just type: {{helpme}} ...and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Or, please visit New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! If you have any questions at all, please [message me]. Again, welcome! Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Subst:User:Ikip/t}}

The template signs your name for you. It is part of:

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		message Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar|message ~~~~}}

Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started awarding Article Rescue Squadron medals to those people listed on Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron's Hall of Fame, the coding is here:

{{ARS|ArticleTitle}}

You don't have to add a name to this list to award someone or yourself this medal. Ikip (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Inspired by User:Piotrus/Top which is hanging above his talk page). Ikip (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of someone taking over these AFD summaries to get them working again? This may help us find those article in more of a need to rescue. -- Suntag ☼ 17:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap that actually has potential! I consider my weak point actually combing through AFDs to find ones that deserve rescuing but this may help exponentially! -- Banjeboi 00:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been watching the CAT:CSD portal and have found that about 25% of the articles there have either been marked incorrectly (which I guess an admin should catch) or just need a little work. On most of the articles that deal with a person, they are notable under WP:BIO but no one (including the db tagger) has taken the time to check for notability references. If you're interested in finding more articles to save (as if there needed to be more to go through) I'd suggest check it out. OlYeller^Talktome 20:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand the obligation of A7. If there's no assertion of notability, the article goes *pfft*. If there is an assertion of notability, then the speedy tag gets declined and the article sent to Prod or AfD. Whether or not an A7-tagged article is notable is irrelevant to the CSD-A7 process, because speedy does not evaluate anything outside the article itself. Does it claim notability? Speedy declined. Does it NOT claim notability? It's gone. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that some admins think it's different and delete under A7 what does not belong under A7. Checking CAT:CSD and removing overeager taggings is thus something helpful. See also Pedro's comments on WT:RFA on that matter[1]. Regards SoWhy 12:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. I was curious as to whether or not an admin checked for references. So when I find an article in CSD that's worth saving (has sources for the info but doesn't cite it) what should I do? Generally, I add links to the sources in the talk page or just add the citations myself and removed the db. I know that the {{rescue}} is specifically for articles in AfD but would it be wrong to use it on an article that's tagged for speedy deletion? Sometimes I don't have time to add the citations on articles or could just generally use some help. I feel like it wouldn't be wrong to use it on CSD articles but I don't want to go against what the description of the tag specifically says it's to be used for. OlYeller^Talktome 05:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My own view on that is the time frame. An AfD lasts around five days... give or take... and a Rescue tag night be added at day one or day five. If a resuce is to be mounted, we have to move fast and hope a closing admin makes notes of post-nomination improvements. When something is tagged for speedy, any improvement must happen within hours, minutes, or sometimes even seconds... not days. Even with the few days offered by an AfD we can be quite swamped, as there are so few of us and so much to do. So please continue as you are. If you find something being speedied that you can improve enough to address the reasons for the tag so that the tag can be removed, please do so. Perhaps we will one day have an "Emergency Rescue Squad", made up of editors who live on Red Bull, whose only task is to attempt rescue of articles that have been speedied. I do not mean to sound flippant, as you asked a very valid question. Simply put, ARS works at AfD, not CSD. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do a lot of review of PRODs, and just recently came out of a 10 day snit (the typical steamrolling of over twenty grouped articles because of faulty logic on one. And no, they weren't my articles), where all I was doing was reviewing prods and CSD's, leaving notes as an IP user. But, I'm back reviewing. So, where do I go to alert others of articles that could use some work? I recently did some work on Leah Horowitz, declining the speedy, before turning that over to the Judaism wikiproject, and now have concerns about Gottfried Honegger. I found there is a of info one the subject, but most is not web acessible. I did find one book reference, and modified the article, but don't know the intent of the PROD'er (if they want it gone, they'll find a way), so i didn't de-PROD it yet.

Anyway, let me know where to put article alerts as I find stuff that I can't fix myself or give to a WikiProject.

Vulture19 (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 99% of articles have yet to reach GA/FA status and so are in need of work. This is too wide a scope for the ARS which has enough to do just looking at the ones in immediate threat of deletion. If there's an article which has promise and you can find a reference then you shouldn't hesitate to deprod it. In most cases, there is usually a better alternative to deletion per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it will remain a case by case approach. Sometimes there are active appropriate Wikiprojects so alerting them is effective. Some of the same strategies you employ is what we do so your experience is quite familiar. Certainly if an article you work on then goes to AfD, like often happens with prodded articles, you should consider if adding the rescue tag makes sense. When we start to develop a guide for how to look for rescuable articles in the prods i hope you'd be willing to offer guidance. -- Banjeboi 14:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I handle saves by attempting the edit myself. Dependent on time, I will at least put one solid ref in. After that, I try to get 1) the article creator, 2) an appropriate WikiProject, 3) ??? to help out. It appears that the ARS jumps in primarily when the article goes to AfD? That's cool. I generally try to get the article at the CSD or PROD stage. So, given that this group definitely has the AfD covered, I will continue to plug along the CSD and PROD route. If you see an article show up at AfD that was contested by me, make sure to check the discussion page for links. That should save you time, and it gives me assurance that, in the extreme case, the ARS will be my #3 if the article gets nominated. Vulture19 (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too watch CSD for misplaced speedy tags and I also wish sometimes that I could add the rescue tag or mark the article in some way to show that it needs help soon. I started a discussion on it before (see here). Someone pointed out that we'd have to have editors who are essentially injecting Red Bull into their veins to keep up with the CSD Rescue tags. I think the best thing you can do is basically what you're already doing; put in a strong reference or arguement, tag the article with known issues, and talk about the issues on the discussion page. Otherwise, you can always hit me up for help. OlYeller^Talktome 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that ANYONE who hasn't worked on the article can remove a speedy tag? There's nothing at all wrong with removing a speedy tag and replacing it with a PROD or AfD, to give you some time to work on it, if it's not a G10 (attack) or G12 (copyvio). ARS folks nominating things for AfD may seem counterintuitive, but it buys time. Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Actually you don't have to replace it with anything, as far as I know. If an article is tagged A7 (for example) yet contains an assertion of notability, it's perfectly legitimate for an editor to remove it. Ideally, the removing editor would then do some work to improve the article. pablo_hablo. 17:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, anyone who has a motivation and willingness to improve an article can add a {{hangon}} tag. If someone besides the article creator has tagged an article with a note on the talk page that says "Give me X hours--I think this can be sourced and am actively working on it." I really expect that most admins would honor that. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I can only speak for myself, yes, I knew you could remove db tags. I usually do when I work on rescuing a CSD article (as well as a hangon). I don't add a prod because if I'm saving it, I believe it shouldn't be deleted and I don't put it into AfD because AfD isn't for cleanup (see WP:BEFORE). That's basically the issue that Vulture and I run in to. To get the help from ARS, we need an overzelous editor who places a CSD tag on an article that can be saved, then attempts to put it into AFD after we make a mvoe to save it. OlYeller^Talktome 17:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I will not remove copvio's or patent nonsense. But I regularly remove CSD's, though I will only do so if I add to the article. In one case, as an IP, I encouraged someone whose CSD I removed to send it to AfD (it's an inherited notability case, and I think the AfD discussion will help establish/reinforce precedence). Now, one of my pet peeves (shared by the kindred spirits here) is having an article tagged for the wrong reason. It irritates the hell out of me that editors who insist on factual accuracy in articles completely disregard it when it comes to deletion. And it is important, as if the article is deleted for the wrong reason (e.g. WP:HOAX (another misused rationale, I could go on and on...)), recreation can be exceedingly difficult. The CSD and PROD processes scare me for the simple reason that hard work can be wiped out by, and this is a worse case example, a flawed nomination and a tired admin. So, without increasing the burden on anyone else, as I get to know bailiwicks of people here, I can shoot a direct request (and by all means, if I can be of help, let me know). Vulture19 (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are times when I will remove a speedy tag & substitute a prod: when the reason given is not one of the speedy criteria, but would be adequate for deletion otherwise & the article itself is uncontroversially deleteable. DGG (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Casliber had a brilliant idea: adding the list of articles which currently have the rescue tag to your talk page:

Template:ARS/Tagged

Coding: {{ARS/Tagged}}

This list is dynamic, and the list of articles will change as the rescue template is removed or added from articles. Ikip (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This crosses a line. I am unhappy with an automatic tool to canvass AFDs to anyone with a self-professed agenda at AFD, especially with no criteria other than someone not wanting the article deleted. When it's a project's cleanup tool in the project's space, that's one thing, but this is too much. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone here be interested in starting a newsletter with me? The best example and most popular newsletter is: WP:POST. There are several examples:

• Category:WikiProject Films newsletters
• Category:WikiProject Cats newsletters
• Category:WikiProject Hawaii newsletters
• Category:WikiProject Biography newsletters
• Category:WikiProject India newsletters
• Category:WikiProject Led Zeppelin newsletters
• Category:WikiProject The Beatles newsletters
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter

...and several bots: Category:Newsletter delivery bots. Ikip (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a semi-annual one may be OK, lets coordinate this once we get a few other kinks worked out. I'd like to see a How-To rescue subpage be created and sort out a few of the present drama so if we get an influx of energy it is directed wisely. -- Banjeboi 23:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This long-standing and useful policy is under attack at Wikipedia:Editing policy. Members of this project should take an interest since its statement that we should "endeavour to preserve information" is in harmony with our mission. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the heads up, there are several other guidelines and essays which echo this policy, see User:Ikip/Del#Strong_arguments:

1. WP:PRESERVE Policy Preserve information. Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing...
2. Wikipedia:Notability Guideline states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Most editors who put an article up for deletion fail to do this. This is something you can bring up in the deletion discussion.
3. Wikipedia:Deletion Policy Decorum and politeness. Wikipedia urges any contributor to read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy before deleting or nominating an article for deletion. "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" (Discussing on the talk page before flagging for deletion is rarely done.)
4. Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process WP:INTROTODELETE Essay Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved.
5. Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state WP:POTENTIAL Essay In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion WP:BEFORE Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.
7. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination "consider adding a tag such as {{cleanup}}, {{disputed}} or {{expert-subject}} instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content."

Ikip (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - thanks for this fine summary. It is quite remarkable how blind some editors are to these numerous encouragments to save material and build upon it. The fact that WP:PRESERVE comes as a surprise to them is telling. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a comment, "under attack" is a poor choice of words to describe a discussion where all concerned have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart but disagree on the detains of how to achieve this. Whenever I feel that a comment is an "attack", I think it indicates that I have become emotionally involved in a discussion, and should try to look at it from the other person's point of view. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing to some AfDs over the past two or three weeks was so horrifying and disturbing that I'm currently working on a proposal to change some things in the AfD process. Before I set it up in form to let the deletion troops place their s*** on it, we may discuss some points - and as a non-native speaker I will need your help anyway.

What I want to change:

• A nomination must be a bit more difficult. The nominator must have done some research on the topic before proposing or nominating an article for deletion. The results must be recapped and posted in the nomination.
• The nomination must begin with a half-sentence about the sort of topic, so that work is more easy for deletion sorting. It should be no problem to start like "This article about a musician..." and similiar. Maybe even a template could be created, to include the nominated article automatically to the respective categories. Something like: {{AfD template|bands and musicians=yes|living persons=yes|etc.}}.
• AfD will no longer last five days but must have a minimum of "votes" - 10, 15, 20 - I don't know. Let's discuss.
• Votes like "per nom.", "per above", "WP:XY" are prohibited. Background: "Votes" must be understandable and discussible for other people. A vote should also proof that the voter really has taken a look at the article, the sources and done a bit of own research. If someone is not able or willing to put five or ten minutes into an AfD, they should not vote. Editors have usually invested hours on an article and it's only fair to not just go through ten discussions in ten minutes.
• If significant new sources are found or if an article has gone under big changes while being at AfD, it can be relisted (there's a note currently, but with about no effect at all). Alternative: Under certain circumstances older voters can be contacted to re-vote. If they don't do, their old votes are dropped.
• Articles not falling under CSD can't be nominated for one week (or even longer?). Instead they should be tagged for the respective WikiProjects, giving the articles time to improve.

Well, take it as a starting point, not much more. Thank you. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 18:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, my idea of AfD is that it asks users their opinion on the validity of a Wikipedia guideline/policy in a certain circumstance. For instance, if someone says, "This band isn't notable under WP:BAND point 5," and 10 people agree, I think that's important. So in short, votes such as "per nom" or "per above" are completely relevant in my opinion. While AfD isn't a vote, the guidlines and policies are to be interpreted by the Wikipedia community. They aren't cut and dry for a reason. I don't think nominations are too easy at the moment. Every AfD gets handled to my knowledge. Having a minimum number of responses isn't a bad idea but perhaps people don't respond because they can't decide based on the info given. In that case, the AfD nominator hasn't given enough info so a concensus wasn't reached (the article stay for now). I sort of like the idea of having a waiting period between CSD and AfD noms but I just see a lot of crap getting to stick around for ~5 days. Those are just my opinions. I appreciate your hard work and hope something positive comes from this coversation and your hard work. OlYeller^Talktome 19:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In theory some of this is spot on but you may want to take each point separately. First off there is a place to discuss AfD proposals such as this so I presume you're looking for some initial feedback. That said this project includes deletionists as well and anyone who helps, IMHO, is welcome so you may wish to strike out (<s></s>) that bit here as it doesn't help much. I think WP:Before has a lot of merit but is doesn't seem to be enforced. Bad noms are made, fail but nothing happens to ensure the nom doesn't repeat. Not sure any easy solution there but I personally would like to see a checklist approach for most AfDs where one needs to work to improve an article with clean-up tags first and affirm that they cannot find sourcing to standards and the subject is not notable before the AfD is started. I am troubled but those who seem to be systematically deleting articles and with volume make many bad noms. Removing articles that shouldn't be here is fine but obviously that is not all that is happening. -- Banjeboi 20:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm not sure how you could make a standard for this that wouldn't be gamed, gamed, gamed. If there are trivially available sources around and the nominator doesn't find them, other people will. (It's kind of the point of AFD.) Any nomination that would practically be prevented by this is harmless, whereas putting teeth on that leads to "The nominator didn't check thus-and-so, speedy keep" (even though "thus-and-so" is useless). Nominators are already expected to do their best, and if that's not good enough that's why AFDs last five days.
2. No nomination that isn't something patently obviously dumb succeeds without at least this. Again, it's instruction creep if you put teeth on it.
3. Why?
4. These votes are already given little consideration by closing admins unless they are trying to see how much success and impact an argument has. (Canvassing sadly washes out any hope of using this as a gauge of late, though.) They're harmless.
5. I see these articles relisted all the time, I don't know what you're talking about. Likewise, comments that are obviously about older versions of the article are dealt with accordingly in closes.
6. This is one of those perennial bad ideas. There are lots of really terrible article ideas that technically skate past A7 but obviously aren't going anywhere.

Excepting #3 and #6, you want to put teeth on things we already do all the time. AFD is already heavily criticized for being endlessly complex and bureaucratic, so adding more layers of complexity and bureaucracy will only aggravate this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comments. I share some of these ideas. In particular

1. YES A search should absolutely be required for anything nominated for lack of sources to prove notability,or anything equivalent to that where a search would be helpful. Getting a proper search as a requirement would come later--the first step is to deal with the articles for which sources couldb e found easily by the simplest of Google searches.
2. YES a nomination shouldat least say what the article is about, so people can screen what they want to work on,
3. 'NO, sometimes 4 or 5 votes is enough. But at least 5 days should always be allowed, for people need timeto contribute to the discussion. Jusdt going by number of votes leads to false reports of snow, due to early vote stacking. First improvement here would be to change to 7 days. This one was mis-conceived,
4. Yes, people should at least say what it is they are agreeing with. They should at least go to the trouble of saying just what policy is broken.
5. Sometimes--the correct thing to do if it isnt obvious, is to relist,and notify the earlier voters. But often it is obvious.
6. sometimes About half the articles that are nominated early are clearly impossible, & we might aswell get rid of them early. Let's start with one day, as a delay and see if it makes any difference. DGG (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My thoughts... to have AfD's actually reviewed before they being allowed to be posted.. much like DYKs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds like a good plan! But who would review them? I can't see a better way of choosing people than just letting anyone comment, and evaluating their comments based on the strength of the argument and the standing of the person in the community. We could solicit such comments on a public noticeboard, with an inobtrusive tag to let people know to comment. Five days should be long enough. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought the point of submitting an article to AfD was for a review. Speaking as someone who has nominated articles for deletion, the last few times I was left with a vague feeling that I could have offered any reasoning for nominating an article -- & it would have gathered enough votes for deletion. I would have felt a lot more confident that I had correctly selected an article that was appropriate for deletion had at least one person written -- instead of "Agree per nominator" -- something along the lines of "I've reviewed the nominator's arguments, checked his facts, & agree with his nomination." (And apologies for ranting, rather than making an on-topic comment.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. ) Yes, any nominator who does not exercise due diligence before submitting an AfD is just wasting everybody's time. Telling people what appropriate searches (SCOPUS, PubMed, index of peers) they performed and what criterion or criteria they are using (WP:ORG, WP:PROF) reduces duplication of effort. If a nominator misses something that is obvious to someone more familiar with the topic area, the absence in the disclosure statement will be glaring and the discussion can be swiftly brought to an amicable close. On a project like this, social reinforcement is probably the best course.
2. ) Yes, this is just common courtesy. Of course, everyone participating in the discussion is honor-bound to read the article, but it is convenient to fellow editors scanning the AfD lists. If someone fails to follow this social norm, I see no problem with adding a brief neutral comment immediately under the nomination statement and informing them that you did so. We have a number of deletion-sorting projects, but many nominators seem unaware of them. Something to make deletion discussion sorting easier and more intuitive would be nice - would it be anti-WP to replace manual text entry with a scripted form with checkboxen, labeled text entry fields, and a reminder to search for sources?
3. ) No, the backlogs on this project are impressive enough as it is. We have to trust closers and DRV participants to recognize a reasonable consensus. DGG's suggestion of extending to seven days might be nice - a number of editors are active primarily over the weekend.
4. ) Kinda, lazy contributions receive little weight, so this behavior is self-defeating.
5. ) Sometimes - significant new sources tend to be obvious to closers, subsequent participants, and DRVers (delete x7, title should be XY, not XZ, keep x2, HEY - close as keep). A stream of hey, I found this forum post, go !vote again or your opinion will be disregarded messages would get old after about one.
6. ) Userfy the reasonable ones - most articles on Wikipedia get very few pageviews, and expecting "the wisdom of the crowds" just to show up is fanciful at best. Still, placing a speedy tag just because an editor went to dinner between saves can be jarring.

So, due diligence as a socially-enforcable standard is good, and the back end of this project runs entirely on social power. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently when an editor attempts to create a new article, they get this message:

• Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article, or search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
• To experiment, please use the sandbox.
• When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references will likely be deleted quickly.

Some editors here mentioned a really good idea, to add one sentence which encourages editors to create a userfied article first.

Userfication works like this, instead of making: ham sandwhich band a new editor would make user:ikip/ham sandwhich band.

I was wondering if anyone had suggestions on how this can be worded. And do you support this idea? Ikip (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love the idea; I think it's a great way to channel newbie enthusiasm into a place that won't get either overwritten, or jumped on too fast. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to make a this a proposal at the village pump—indeed, I still am—but I'm still trying to think through some issues. My main concern is that we don't want editors to waste effort building new articles in user space which then get promptly deleted when they are moved to article space. Drafting in user space doesn't help if the new article's subject matter is already covered in an existing article, or if the subject genuinely isn't notable enough. Won't we need some sort of support system (e.g. my outline below) on top of the basic idea? Feedback would be very helpful. - Pointillist (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New article support

In a nutshell: help inexperienced editors to develop new articles with acceptable quality and notability, by (a) creating articles in user space by default, where they can be polished without time pressure, and (b) giving advice and support tailored to avoid the main causes of article failure. Possible elements include:

• General injunction (with explanation) not to create pages about yourself, your company, your friends or your band, pages that advertise, personal essays etc.
• Advice on searching to see whether the subject is already covered, and help on creating a redirect if appropriate.
• Easy access to notability advice for this category of subject matter: navigating the whole of GNG and SNG is a bit overwhelming for an inexperienced editor.
• Ditto for the basics of reliable sources and how to use them without duplicating copyright material.
• Hints, like "find your first two references before you start writing", "copy the structure of a similar article" (maybe that could be automated for some popular categories?), etc.

Technical features might include:

• Easy way(s) for editors to find their draft articles, e.g. "My drafts" tab or link.
• Drafts in user space being tagged {{NOINDEX}} automatically.
• Technique for telling new page patrollers and other potentially helpful editors whether to examine user space drafts.
• Possible need for cleaning up abandoned drafts by inactive user accounts.

As you can see, this is going in the direction of a guided workflow ("wizard")—going beyond normal wikipedia editing. It might work best if it was category-specific, e.g. there'd be one version for films, others for bands, albums, performers, MMORPG clans, etc. Each wizard would contain embedded best practice for structure, subject-specific notability, categories, advice on known reliable/unreliable sources, and a pre-flight checklist before moving the page into article space. Right now, I'm a little lost trying to work out how much of the support system is essential and how much is feature creep. The question is whether the editors we are trying to attract and retain (i.e. reasonably well-educated good faith contributors) actually need this level of support. - Pointillist (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a passing comment, it's very-late/very-early for me right now. We've tried to address some of this at WP:YFA. There's also a nascent "create article" script but I can't find it right now. And I just recently posted to VPT and got some good details on how to get a name and create a uspace subpage. I'll check it more tomorrow. Warning though - that's a whole lot of technical details which are difficult enough as they are. Combine that with the newer users' tendency to not read everything, it will always be a problem. People are generally goal-oriented (as opposed to rule-oriented), if your flow doesn't suit them, they will surge over the banks. Franamax (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another passing comment, and supplementary qquestion - as many, many new articles by new users are copyright violations or attack pages, encouraging new users to create articles in userspace would therefore mean there would be more copyvios and attacks in userspace. Would this not create patrol problems? Currently when monitoring recent changes I tend to ignore userspace. pablo_hablo. 13:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am really glad there is positive feedback about this idea, since 76.5% of articles put up for deletion were created by editors who had 350 contributions or less, this seems like a problem.

I moved the discussion to refactored out. which is the talk page for the text every editor sees above a brand new article. I encourage everyone here to lend support to this proposal. Ikip (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the fact that most deletions (or deletion debates) are about articles from relatively new editors is supposed to be a problem. It would be really amazing if most deletions were about articles from experienced editors, since these probably know better the do's and don'ts. I have no problems obviously with trying to help new editors write better articles (and find more suitable subjects), but the repeated suggestion that the fact that most deletions are for articles by newbies is somehow a problem is bizarre. Fram (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, really there are three strands here:

• The notice that encourages contributors to create new articles in user space.
• The policies for draft articles in user space, e.g. do they get patrolled, are they indexed by search engines, is copyvio a concern, etc?
• Technology to help get articles right, e.g. breaking WP:YFA into bite-sized chunks like a wizard/checklist.

Ikip is re-starting the first strand on (struck) Where should we discuss the other two? - Pointillist (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would bring up policies for draft articles in user space in WP:VPP, asking where to ask.

The WP:Your First Article question can be asked on the talk page, and also on WP:VPT. Ikip (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: The new article wizard is at (who woulda thunk? :) WP:Article wizard. User:Mr.Z-man created it and from the looks of it, it hasn't been worked on for a long time. The (long) discussion leading up to the creation of WP:YFA can be found here and in the following section. A section at VP (technical) discusses how to create a user sub-page. I certainly would like to see a process where new users had an easy way to create their own subpage rather than crash onto the rock of deletionism. However noindexing, copyvios and content proliferation are all serious concerns. Franamax (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks like copyvio in user space might be the first major hurdle. What's the right place to discuss that? - Pointillist (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see this getting some attention as I had given Pointilist a brilliant idea barnstar when this concept came up in a discussion on another matter.

1. First let's see if there is some way to have it only pop up for new user accounts and/or accounts with a small number of initial edits, with an option that it can be bypassed in those cases where the account is one belonging to an established editor who has opened a new account.
2. It should be then obviously written in a very simple manner so as to not confuse newcomers, unlike most of guideline and policy. We all know how confusing it can be for even seasoned editors.
3. The warnings about copyvio should be repeated politely several times, as well as stressing the importance of decent sources... with a simple explanation that blogs and personal websites are not suitable except in vey specialized cases.
4. It could include a link to members of welcoming committee or ARS and include a very encouraging note to seek input and advice before sending to mainspace. with our respects and apologies... We're here to help.
5. And a very pointed warning that sending something to mainspace before it is ready will likely result in deletion...

We're a volunteer organization, and I do not think there will be a lack of editors willing to offer advice. Count me among the names heading that list! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't mean to sit on that nice barnstar for ever (!), and I 100% agree that this should be encouraging and very simple to use (that's why I tend towards category-specific wizards). However, I'd like our proposal to be bullet-proof before we send it into battle, and it looks like copyvio is a big issue for some people.

Given that one of the main advantages of userfication is that articles get enough time to discard their early problems, I'd like to avoid policing for copyvio in user space. IMO where a user space page is marked {{NOINDEX}} with some sort of {{Construction}} notice, a reasonable amount of copyright material should be permitted under the usual academic terms "for private research and comment". The contributor would then have time to rework the concepts into non-copyvio form (I don't know whether CorenBot would get involved at this stage). What do you think? Where should this aspect get discussed further? - Pointillist (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It WAS a brilliant idea. And is copyvio in userspace/construction already being patrolled? WIki encourages the use of userpace to work out just such problems. All we need let new editors understand that the waters are deeper than they think and the should not wade in without their floaties. If an established editor messes up... well, he/she should know better. But as there are already processes in place to assist newcomers, all we need do is make it less confusing and more (new)user friendly. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refactored out the link to the other page, and removed my proposal on the other page. I don't think we are ready yet to present this to the larger community. Ikip (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I would tend to disagree on the "private research" bit for copyvios. For one thing, private can be much more easily done on your own computer, for another because mirror sites won't necessarily respect the noindex tag in the same way search engines do. Mostly because the end result will likely be copyvios sitting forever in uspace and because we just plain have to eliminate copyvio. This was recently discussed at WT:NPP (here) and the best suggestion for copyvio seemed to be immediate blanking of the copyvio part with an appropriate message. The text would still be available in history but not shown in public display. As far as finding copyvios, Coren would be able to confirm whether CSB scans uspace and how it responds. Putting the big black copyvio notice onto uspace pages would probably not be too friendly, but maybe Coren could work out a way to blank the text?

For wider discussion on the issue, I'd suggest WT:C and WT:NPP.

As far as who sees the wizard, one solution I could think of is to have it as a gadget in Preferences. Newly registered users would have it enabled by default and it would stay on until they figured out how to turn things off in their preferences - and by then they've probably gained some clue, right? The MediaWiki software would need to check the pref and instead of going to the URL with "&edit&redlink=1" it would use "&edit&redlink=2", which would invoke the wizard. This is something a dev would have to do of course, perhaps Werdna would be interested. Franamax (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new addition to new articles

Pointillist had a good idea for the userfication noticfication, which I will move here.

1 to 3 is the original, which everyone sees when they create a new article.

4 is the new section:

The biggest priority is to make the new userefication section as short and concise as possible.

The beauty of this new sentence is: [[User:{{REVISIONUSER}}/{{FULLPAGENAME}}]], which allows a user to simply click the link to start a new userfied page. Ikip (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikip, have you tested this with a blank page? I'm not sure REVISIONUSER will be magical when no revision has yet been made. I switched it over to Special:MyPage for now, 'til you can confirm it works. Franamax (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: [[Special:MyPage/{{PAGENAME}}]] good idea, I didn't know that was possible, the only problem with [[Special:MyPage/{{PAGENAME}}]] is it creates an extra step, the editor has to then press "create this page". Ikip (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It works. Try any page, like this one, djaklshgkjshaj then put in {{REVISIONUSER}} It also works for previously deleted articles, like Obama effect. Remember to only click show preview. Ikip (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MyPage could maybe be made to work by adding &edit&redlink=xx&preload=yy. xx would be 1 for now, 2 when the wizard gets going. yy would be for use when userfying an existing article and for new articles would preload a preamble including noindex and the underconstruction template.

Your way of using a magicword is simpler though, if it will work in the editnotice. Franamax (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, wonderful, you are quite a genius. Anyway to tighten and shorten the text even more? Ikip (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Careful... the over-worked and quite dedicated Franamax does not recieve as much praise as he rightly deserves for his tireless efforts to improve wikipedia... else he'd be constantly running out to buy larger sized hats... and that would get expensive... (grin) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, MQS you have burst my bubble. I truly took that as a compliment - now I see how it could be interpreted differently. lol. :) Perhaps the fact that I have linked several other places where this has been discussed has caused some resentment? Or someone new showing up casting ideas among the regulars? Dunno. Anyway, topic of longstanding interest to me, I only came back here to consider the best text - but we do need the right technical backing so new editors have a "short path" to what they want to accomplish. Franamax (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Templates are simply a different form of content and ARS can certainly offer help on Templates for deletion (TfD)s - an area that is generally less busy and contentious than AfD - I see little harm in getting more eyes on TfD discussions. (Note: I've had to re-edit this statement due to the RFC being changed after posting.) Templates are well within the spirit of what ARS does, that our name doesn't state Article and Template Rescue Squad is rather silly. We work to save content worth keeping and advise when something should likely be merged, redirected and deleted. ARS members look to solve problems and serve our readers, templates often need rescuing as much as articles do. TfD, generally, concerns more experienced editors so I see little downside to ARS being involved in this manner for now. -- Banjeboi 13:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is soliciting comments directly to a deletion discussion from a project that exists to prevent the deletion of articles appropriate? This project was never "getting more eyes on [deletion] discussions." In fact, "The Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is not about casting keep votes[...]. ARS ensure that articles about notable topics do not get deleted when they can be rescued through normal editing" not by selectively notifying a group which had a major recruitment drive based on having an "inclusionist" userbox on your userpage. Even if good faith is intended, the damage has been done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec)Benjoboi, "which is technically able to be used on TfDs": What is that supposed to mean? Whether it is "technically able" or not isutterly irrelevant, I can add template:BLPunsourced to an article about a plant species, but that has no further importance. Please try to keep the question focused and don't add unrelated stuff.
• Furthermore: do you mean all templates or only content templates? It makes no difference to my opinion, but it may influence other people one way or the other.
• I would prefer also if everything beyond AfD's was included somehow in this RfC, so that we don't have to discuss categories, mergers, redirects, ... all separately. In general: is the ARS only intended for articles which are up for deletion through AfD, or does it have a wider scope, and if so, howwide should it be?
• My personal opinion on that question is that the ARS should only be for articles on AfD, as it is basically intended to rescue articles (hence the name) through a combined effort at sourcing and major cleaning, not through a combined effort at voting keep, which would be the intended effect on most other deletion discussions (and which is evidenced by the canvassing for mergers and templates which has happened already). A template (or a category or a redirect) is not content, but a way of presenting content, which is completely different and should not be grouped under this rescue project. Fram (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Note the distinction between "improv[ing] articles flagged for rescue by adding sources and otherwise cleaning them up" and "offer[ing] help on Templates for deletion (TfD)s". One is a call for article improvement. The other is a call to comment at a deletion discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your opinion on this project, the {{rescue}} tag, and the work of the project members here is painfully apparent. I'm unclear why you choose to insert yourself continuously in a project you seem so at odds with. In any case this isn't part 2, 3 or 4 in an effort to characterize all editors here as inclusionists. It's to stop the edit-warring regarding templates being within the scope of ARS. How the project page is reworked to reflect that articles and other content worth rescuing would have to be worked out just as we've worked out every other concern in the past. This RfC concerns scope not re-accussing an entire project of canvassing, inclusionism, etc concerns which have been addressed and dismissed every time. -- Banjeboi 13:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This RfC concerns scope not your opinion of Mr. In Black's opinions. pablo_hablo. 14:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I like the idea of improving on AFD to prevent them from being deleted. The idea of a "come and comment on deletion discussions to save things from deletion" is what I'm not so hot on. When you outright say that, I have a major problem. Characterizing that as a problem limited to me is a mistake. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, this RfC concerns scope not accusations of canvassing. -- Banjeboi 14:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • How do you propose this project clean up non-article content in response to qualms raised in deletion discussions? Almost all tools at XfD are at risk of deletion because they are ill-conceived or abandoned, not incomplete. (Also, bear in mind my comments are addressing your call for members of this project to "offer help on Templates for deletion (TfD)s". That's advocating the same kind of canvassing I've been criticizing all along, and I'm only repeating myself because the canvassing hasn't stopped.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • < boggles > I think your characterizing my posting a link to a TfD discussion as canvassing is wholly innapropriate and a leaping pile of bad faith. I'll echo OlYeller21's concern that I can't believe I have to spell that out to an admin. We don't tell people how to vote we ask them to participate in the discussion - you should know better. ARS has always worked to save content worth keeping and advise when something should likely be merged, redirected, renamed and deleted. TfD just concerns content in a different format. Likely the project page would have a section added pointing to a subpage regarding TfDs with handy links; i think the main premise to get accross is that templates morph greatly over time and often become obsolete, renamed, repurposed, etc while articles once established generally just grow. The {{rescue}} template would likely be tweaked to display template-appropriate content and our ARSBot tweaked to display the correct links for our current list subpage. -- Banjeboi 15:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • "How dare you, sir!" isn't an argument. Yes, everyone knows all you want is to help the encyclopedia. Understand that you don't necessarily have a monopoly on it, and that I can ascribe to you all the good faith in the world and still have a problem with how you try to help the encyclopedia.
              Anyway. Noise aside. ARS has always worked to save content worth keeping. I don't want to see that branding turned into "Please keep this template I think we should keep." Instead, I think the template and associated tools are only for content that needs revamping/rewriting/cleanup in order to be saved. I'm not strictly opposed to {{rescue}} on templates per se, but it needs to be clear, {{rescue}} needs to be "Please clean this up in order to clearly show its value" not "Please keep this, I think it helps the encyclopedia." If you want to say "Please keep" we have XfD discussions for that. If you want to have more people come and back you up and say "Please keep", please don't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am unhappy with a proposal that amount to the abuse of the audience of 200+ members. I'm not suggesting malfeasance on the part of the group, but that it's inappropriate to solicit that group to skew a debate with the force of their presence, by soliciting their input directly to debate.
              You suggested that this project should come and comment on selected TFD discussions. Solicitation from a group with an avowed stance (in this case, the prevention of deletion of content) is harmful. What benefit do we gain by making this project noticeboard for template deletion discussions when we have that noticeboard already? And before attacking the assertion that the project has an avowed stance, note that there are even a link to a WSJ article describing this project as stridently opposed to deletion; ARS is notably inclusionist! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your, IMHO, shrillish "concern" has been soundly rejected every time this project has been targeted with these generalized attacks and yes, this RfC is all about your edit-warring. As an admin you should be alarmed by your own behaviour. -- Banjeboi 23:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • You attacked me instead of answering my question. Again. We have a noticeboard for templates for deletion. How do we benefit by having another? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • To me the answer to that seems apparent, we have a noticeboard for AfDs as well yet hundreds of editors have found ARS to be helpful in recognizing content that shouldn't be deleted or otherwise can be used for our readers' benefit. Likewise ARS can be helpful on TfD discussions, identifying issues, proposing solutions and offering more eyes on a deletion discussion. -- Banjeboi 01:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Why can't ARS members simply watch TFD, like all editors? Why is their input so valuable it needs to be solicited directly? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outdent. Well I guess I can answer that with my habits as an example. I don't watch AfD at all, if an AfD is brought to my attemtion here or one of the wikiproject talkpages I watch ... then I have a look. Same with all other XfDs, I simply don't pay any attention to them at all. My hopes are that editors who are experienced in those areas will be able to raise the alert if they feel something is being deleted in error. Obviously it would be ideal if nothing was ever created or deleted in error but that's unlikely to happen so we work with the systems we have - not the ones we hope for. -- Banjeboi 11:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the problem, though. You're wanting to make this the "Come save this from deletion" noticeboard, and that's exactly what I've been trying to stop it from becoming and exactly what people have been worrying that it would become. This is an article improvement noticeboard, not a save this from deletion noticeboard. The important part of "improving articles so they aren't deleted" is "improving articles." When yandman talks about coopting this board, or I talk about canvassing, this is what I mean. It's a good faith effort, but it's harmful to consensus building. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may have us mistaken with all other clean-up projects. We only work on items marked for deletion. We specialize in making quick assessments and improvements including recommending if something likely should be merged, renamed, reworked, deleted, etc. And your continued assertions/accusations mischaracterizing us all as inclusionists etc. are only serving to prevent the project from moving forward to building tools to help improve those very items we're here to do. Sorry, I see your profound, unsubstantiated and repeated criticism as unproductive and toxic. You quote "improving articles so they aren't deleted", where is that from? We "ensure that articles about notable topics do not get deleted when they can be rescued through normal editing". You may want to also note we don't punish people for tagging items that really should be deleted, we may try to work with them so the do better editing in the future but many items that are simply not rescuable are tagged and, yes, get deleted. We help as we can. -- Banjeboi 19:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This project only works on items marked for deletion. It does not work on deletion discussions, and you've called for people to come and get involved in template deletion discussions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, you really are pushing the absurd here. Do you honestly think or have any evidence that ARS restricts its members from taking part in the AfD discussion, in any way? For that matter we don't tell people how to vote or even vote. We do instruct to read the AfD to know what the issues stated are, accurate or not. So no, you're mistaken on this one as well, we certainly do take part in the AfD as well as look to improving the article if appropriate and possible. There's no logical reason this wouldn't carry over to templates as well - the skills are just less used by most Wikipedians. -- Banjeboi 01:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not absurd, it's the distinction that allows this project to exist. If this project exists to clean up content up for deletion, that's good and should be encouraged. The project being a board for soliciting people to come to deletion discussions, that's a problem. That's the problem. And the fact that you haven't yet suggested what the project would do for templates, let alone other non-article content, and talked about "getting more input at TFD discussions", seems to say that you're wanting to solicit people to come to deletion discussions. Selectively soliciting people to deletion discussions is the problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well you are indeed mistaken as the items primarily addressed by this project are ones at deletion so it's disingenuous to claim surprise or object that memebers take part in deletion discussion. It's our primary work, we try to understand the issues that brought content to XfD and offer our perspective and often talents to fixing problems or suggesting what is best for Wikipedia. And despite your assertions I have already explained how we would help at TfD a few times in this RfC. I'm sorry you're assuming something else is at play. -- Banjeboi 01:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Templates, categories, images, sound files and anyting that is not an article are outside the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron. The point of the squadron is to collaboratively source and improve articles listed on Afd. There is no reason, however, why there shouldn't be a "Template Improvement Team" to go with ARS. pablo_hablo. 14:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's all content though, we don't compartmentalize our content that only images go in one pile and only templates are here. It's all information, visual, auditory etc and it works together to communication the vast sum of human knowledge to each other, freely. Templates are simply a different way to organize content. And a "Template Improvement Team" would likely be a sub-team of ARS using ... the {{rescue}} tag with links helpful to template issues. -- Banjeboi 14:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's not content, it's presentation. An article has content, a template (anda category and so on) has no content but is a method of presenting it (there's a reason that they are called "navigation" templates). When you delete e.g. the NY representatives template, no content is lost, only a method of navigating. Fram (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fram has a good point. We're supposed to be saving things (articles, templates, pics, etc) from deletion when there's a reason not to (i.e. more references are needed and out there). If we're adding the {{rescue}} template when the only thing that can be done is vote in the TfD, then there's a problem. But if the template is broken (for example) and it can be fixed, then adding the {{rescue}} tag makes sense. OlYeller^Talktome 14:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually templates are content. A list of kinds of Italian bread is standardized in {{Italian bread}} and posted to relevant articles. At Tfd the core issues tend to be, is this needed, should it be merged, renamed etc. These are quite similar to AfD discussions. Sourcing is rarely an issue but the rest of those issues seem relevant. I was involved in a TfD regarding a group of "fringe" articles - was the template applying undue weight to those theories - so the core issues and the spirit are nearly idecticle. -- Banjeboi 14:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I tend to be a deletionist but I also believe in saving SAVABLE articles from deletion even when they're in AfD or CSD. Being a deletionist and wanting to save articles aren't mutually exclusive. The line on what's "savable" is drawn by each member. Saying that everyone in a group is the same is about as close to bigoted as you can get and I'm personally sick of being personally attacked by an administrator because of the alleged actions of others. That being said, I don't see ARS as being just for articles. I think the {{rescue}} tag can be used for anything on wikipedia that may be in danger of being deleted when a measurable amount of work can be done to keep it from being deleted. OlYeller^Talktome 14:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That a group can be composed of a majority does not deny that a minority exists. My problem is with "Come comment on this discussion" and less "OMG INCLUSIONIST CABAL" because we already have a general-purpose "come comment on this discussion" noticeboard for deletion discussions. This is a "come fix these articles" noticeboard, and is for articles that need to be fixed; turning it into "come comment on this discussion" will rapidly turn it into "Partisan Battleground Project". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the first time I've read a response from you on this page that I wasn't offended. If it makes any difference, if people are doing that, I ignore it to the point where I can't remember that even happening. As to not offend others and assume good faith of the "minority", please address specific people when they do something like that. Why am I having to tell this to an admin? OlYeller^Talktome 14:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I am operating from the assumption that advertising a discussion to an audience which chiefly sympathizes with one side of that discussion is bad. It's not bad because the audience's contribution is bad; it's bad because partisan canvassing skews discussion inordinately. I don't know how I could more directly call out Banjeboi or Ikip (in reference to the last two canvassing messes) without overly personalizing things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm suggesting that you talk about it with them on there talk page as when you do it here and don't use specific names, you're calling out the entire ARS community for the actions of 2 people. OlYeller^Talktome 14:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That doesn't get any wider input (as amusing as the juxtaposition is, the only place for a representative mix of people with an opinion on the operation of this project is its own talk page) and it doesn't solve the problem of the canvassing directly. If it's up for a week while wider input is solicited to a talk page, then the damage is done even if the canvassing is removed later. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Until this RfC was stated, by me, I had no clue you were accusing me of canvassing. You never stated it to me, that I know of, and your edit summaries were, IMHO, shrill. I'll agree again with OlYeller21 that canvassing issues need to be addressed on a user level, and admins should be well aware of that. You've used the canvassing board before so maybe that would be a better alternative to keep this wikiproject focussed on our work rather than your perception of some editors actions. -- Banjeboi 19:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, this RfC concerns scope not accusations of canvassing. -- Banjeboi 14:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I see your proposal as "Should this project canvass its members to participate in TFD discussions?" Also, you just repeated the same argument twice in one discussion, which is what that WP:ATA spinoff is talking about, whereas I've been repeating the same argument over many different related discussions. But we've both been articulating new parts of our own positions and gaining at least some light in the discussion, so it's not as though either of us is doing anything useless. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Oy vey, sadly I see you've been accusing me of canvassing for several hours now. I'll echo OlYeller21's concern that I can't believe we have to spell this out to an admin. We don't tell people how to vote we ask them to participate in the discussion - you should know better, there is a big difference. Maybe re-read WP:Canvassing. -- Banjeboi 15:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Why here? (And please, the "I can't believe this, you should know better" is very tiresome.)- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Your blanket statement disparaging a group of 200+ members is wrong. There, is that more clear? You're an admin but your poor behaviour belies that. Clear enough? Admins are expected to act a bit more civil, follow policies at least a little better. I hope this explains why your edit-warring accross this project and related discussion is unwelcome, uncivil and unbecoming and admin. -- Banjeboi 03:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Response above, this is sprawling out of control. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • My patience with your concerns is rather run out at this point. You seem to be ready to argue and threaten, edit-war and accuse then register another concern when your actions have generated "sprawl". I find that disingenuous at best. -- Banjeboi 11:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Um. Okay. I moved my comment above because I thought this back-and-forth was starting to dominate the page. But go go gadget accusations! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment I'm with OlYeller21, even though I'm probably a mergeist, if you have to nail me down. ARS exists to rescue stuff, primarily articles, and people who want to help by improving things facing deletion are welcome here. If someone wants to post notices in the hopes of canvassing for keep !votes, that's their problem, and if people read this page looking for places to cast keep !votes, that's their problem. I've had the experience of posting an article for rescue and Benjiboi has shown up and strenuously argued that it be deleted. I know I've looked at articles tagged for rescue, and either shaken my head and walked away (not wanting to pile on in an obviously appropriate deletion trend) or argued for deletion or merge. So I don't care if people put up TfD, IfD, or the like for rescue--If I know or strongly suspect that the target is notable, I'll use the resources (ProQuest, EBSCOhost) and knowledge (CITET, etc.) at my disposal to fix it. I personally don't see how I can help with those other non-article deletion spaces, but I also don't see the traffic in such non-AfD XfD's to be high enough to be a distraction to the rest of the ARS. Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, people know me as a strong inclusionist, but even I don't blindly argue to keep every rescue templated article. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the comment you linked there speaks more to my argument than Banjeboi's. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• By and large, templates are only deleted if they are a) redundant, b) unused and totally neglected or c) obviously not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. The one general exception to this is navboxes, and frankly navbox TfDs do not need more input from the more fringe elements of this WikiProject, for the reasons intimated by aMiB. I don't see any positive impact to involving ARS in template discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characterizing any editors as fringe isn't civil. If you have an issue with a particular editor(s) take it to them directly please. And your assertion that having more eyes on a TfD not likely to have any positive impact, seems counter to the spirit of consensus. We want more participation so we are more likely to make the right decision. -- Banjeboi 03:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"We want more participation so we are more likely to make the right decision"... I don't believe I am the only one who is deeply disturbed by statements such as this. The reason ARS has survived various formal (MFD) and informal (ANI) deletion discussions is that it has always been claimed that it was about editing articles where lack of content/structure/sources threatened deletion, not block-participating in XfDs. And I think that the vast majority of editors in this project follow that philosophy. You clearly have another opinion, and I'm sorry, but an important project such as this one cannot be hijacked by a handful of editors who want it to take another direction. yandman 07:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have implied meaning to a statement that isn't there. The right decision isn't to keep or delete but what is best for Wikipedia. Consensus discussion is to involve better judgement by a group to make the best decision possible - any idea why we wouldn't want more participation in discussions that affect us all? As an aside this RfC is to help us make the right or best decision as well. Please AGF that the exact same thing I've been doing here all along is working to improve Wikipedia. -- Banjeboi 15:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is indeed the best thing. Which is why we have a page called WP:AFD on which all the deletion discussion are listed. "better judgement by a group" is exactly what we don't want. We don't want a group to decide they are making the best judgement by block-voting in XfDs. We don't want a group that has been allowed to use an official-looking articlespace template suddenly decide that they don't want to play by the rules that were set down. When did this project abandon the whole "stick to improving the articles, let others notice our work and participate in the discussion" ethos? Since this project was hijacked (and I choose my words carefully, the attempts to merge this page with WP:Inclusionism being the most blatant example), that philosophy has pretty much evaporated. yandman 15:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And consensus is what ARS has always advocated. Accusations of block voting are simply false and no credible evidence has been shown to sustain that blanket bad-faith accusations. You can stop now. And that attempts to merge this page with WP:Inclusionism was stopped by me at ANI. Every other concern about inclusionism blah blah blah has also been addressed. ARS has been continuously supported by the community, despite generalized and unsubstantiated accusations. -- Banjeboi 23:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As a very general comment, the more light we get on the various non-AfD XfDs the better, and what we need to do is figure out how to encourage it, not worry about whether it falls into any particular remit. TfD in the past has been really problematic, because most of it is very uninteresting, but on occasion something is proposed where the deletion actually means changing or editing a Wikipedia project of procedure. Any such discussions of importance should be taken elsewhere, like the VP, but they do show up at TfD -- and MfD. There are lots of ways to delete material that avoid the publicity of AfD; this Project has a wider role than just being an AfD talk page, or thinking its title means a prohibition against doing whatever is relevant and permissible and acceptable to the community. DGG (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, we should be able to be called to attempt to rescue anything under an XfD process (i.e. not PROD, CSD or other non-final discussions). If this means we must change the name of the project to just Rescue Squadron, just to avoid spurious arguments, so be it. Mark Hurd (talk) 08:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What are the rescue template actually doing on a template? Essentially all TfD debates focus on usefulness and/or appropriateness of a template. While there are cases where a rewording of the template can address the concerns that is raised on the deletion debate, in most cases those debates deals with the idea behind the template. As such there is nothing to rescue, either the template is appropriate, or it is not, and the only way to figure which is to reach a consensus. On such cases the template serves no purpose. Taemyr (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ARS has always worked to save content worth keeping and advise when something should likely be merged, redirected, renamed and deleted, etc. TfD just concerns content in a different format. Likely the project page would have a section added pointing to a subpage regarding TfDs with handy links; I think the main premise to get accross is that templates morph greatly over time and often become obsolete, renamed, repurposed, etc while articles once established generally just grow. The {{rescue}} template would likely be tweaked to display template-appropriate content and our ARSBot tweaked to display the correct links for our current list subpage. -- Banjeboi 15:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is that the rescue template exists in order to recruit people into improving the content under discussion. For templates at TfD it's difficult to see how that purpose can be served. Taemyr (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is only an aspect of what we do. We also offer our insights on other options as well as looking at issues from our various perspectives. And templates are content there to help our readers - we can surely offer an opinion if something is fixable, useless, etc. And for basic templates we might even be able to address the issues directly by editing them. -- Banjeboi 02:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes or No - I'll say "yes" if this moves to an "all or nothing" sort of outcome. As has been said above, anything under the XfD process should be included. This should not only apply to AfD and TfD, but also to CfD (Category for Deletion) and even IfD (images). Otherwise, count mine as a "no". Everything under XfD = "yes". Articles and templates ONLY = "no". - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 09:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would likely be a yes as the logical conclusion would be that other XfD would also be allowed. Templates just happenned to be at the heart of the edit-warring so I decided wider community input would help show a consensus of how to proceed. Personally, dealing with creating another ANI thread was not helping lift my spirits to contribute and even if one editor is blocked another could quickly pop up to further disrupt things. Better to RfC and see where the community stands. -- Banjeboi 15:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• as a card-carrying occlusionist (i.e., someone who prefers to see issues like this get closed) I have to say: WTF??? if someone thinks a template is salvageable and useful, and wants to rescue it - let 'em rescue it. there's just no reason to be hasty about deleting a template (short of it constituting a violation of WP core principles, or being created for some kind of vandalism). Wikipedia has plenty of space, and a template can sit in the background, unused, while people play with it. if you're worried about it being used, wrap the whole thing in 'noinclude' tags so it can't transclude anything. what a silly debate... --Ludwigs2 04:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I am one who has called the ARS to help me attempt to rescue two templates. It looks like Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6‎#Template:NYRepresentatives is going to be unsuccessful as was the first attempt. Nonetheless, I think ARS should be invovled in rescue attempts of any form of content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the ARS should be disbanded entirely, as an equivalent organization designed to rally deletionists to an article in support of its removal would be very quickly MFDed. However, in the knowledge that that won't happen, I believe templates should be out of scope of the ARS. What does the A stand for? Stifle (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stifle, what are YOU here for? If I can speak for the ARS as a whole, we're here to build an encyclopedia.' That means adding encyclopedic content and preventing the removal of encyclopedic content, most often through fixing bad/marginal articles on appropriately encyclopedic topics. ARS is not inclusionist, although ARS attracts inclusionists, and good faith editors can differ over the definition of "appropriately encyclopedic topics" without undermining the encyclopedia-building process. Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're engaging in codology if you expect me to believe that ARS is not an inclusionist project designed to canvass editors to keep articles that aren't always approaching notability. You're also the only project which has managed to get license to leave your project tag on an article page, rather than a talk page like all the others. One of the main methods of keeping an encyclopedia high-quality is the removal of inappropriate content, and the ARS hampers that. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The community disagrees with your blanket assertions and bad faith accusations that you feel it's OK to spread your antagonistic views shows a lack of civility toward fellow editors and is generally unhelpful and unwelcome. If you've nothing constructive to offer here it's likely this project is not a good match for your particular POV. There are plenty of projects out there so let me hereby encourage you to explore the wikiverse in hopes you find a more collegial envirnment for your take on things. -- Banjeboi 10:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If by "the community", you mean "Some other people and I", then yes. There is, however, room for all of us in Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I support Ben's proposal to formerly include templates. Ikip (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes The ARS may properly concern itself with any content which is threatened with removal. If this gets complicated we might introduce subdivisions like International Rescue and its specialist craft such as Thunderbird 4... Colonel Warden (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - If the content of article, template, file, picture, etc. is savable (requires some sort of maintenance like adding refs or fixing code) then yes, it should be tagged with the {{rescue}} tag. If people are that worried about symantics, change ARS to RS or WRS (Wikipedia Rescue Squadron). I don't think that artciles should have the {{rescue}} tag added if the articles, templates, etc. that are currently as complete as they can be. In other words, if an article has all the refs added that can be found and its notability is in question or if the template is working perfectly and can't be changed so that it's not redundant, the tag should not be added. OlYeller^Talktome 16:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If this is the proposal, I'm amenable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Just as we don't punish people tagging articles that really can't be rescued we simply would educate folks regarding the proper use regarding any other XfD. The concerns, IMHO, are a bit blunted as non-AfD discussions tend to attract more experienced editors so I don't see quite the same misapplying concern. -- Banjeboi 01:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Ya, I'm not saying that people who tag incorrectly need to be warned or reprimanded in any way, just educated. OlYeller^Talktome 01:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  IF only this would be applied in practice, there would perhaps be less opposition and criticism. However, when a template like the NYrepresentatives is tagged and people here are canvassed to come and keep it at the TfD, this is considered perfectly acceptable by members of the ARS, even though no content changes have been proposed or suggested, and the tag and message were clearly not in line with what is the proposed scope of the ARS. So I don't believe in this proposal at all, and continue to oppose any change of scope for the ARS. Fram (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  As someone who has participated in that discussion and despite your claim, has made content suggestions, you have this one wrong. The original poster asked for help which is far from canvassing which entails not only telling people how to vote but where to do it. This was not that. Another canvassing accusation down the drain <gloop> <gloop> <gloop>. -- Banjeboi 10:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  "It seems to me that {{NYRepresentatives}} should be kept if the rest of Category:United States House of Representatives delegations navigational boxes, but it is at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_6#Template:NYRepresentatives. I know you don't put rescue tags on templates, but this should be kept." How is this not "not only telling people how to vote but where to do it"? How to vote = it should be kept, where = TfD discussion. Fram (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  As I stated the original poster asked for help, they stated their opinion but never said "everyone needs to vote to keep this". You inventing conversatios which didn't happen. Most of us are adults here and know how to register our opinion on a XfD, it's rather rude to presume we would be swayed by a canvassing request or even follow it. I wouldn't say we are immune to the concept but certainly haven't seen this effectively employed either. If we can help, we do, if not we don't. -- Banjeboi 10:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You claimed that no canvassing had happened, which is patently untrue. Now you claim that no one would be swayed by it, which may be true, but is a completely different discussion. I did not invent any conversation, I quoted it. Fram (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent. The issue remains the same, we don't punish an editor for misusing this or any other teplate, we work to ensur ethey dont do it again. Likewise we don't accuse an entire Wikiproject for something that one editor may or may not have done. The rest is just bickering and it seems only to show emnity against the many editors here. It's unhelpful and you can consider your concern duly noted. -- Banjeboi 01:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]