Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Members
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Bot
editDoes anyone want to help me make a bot, so we can ask all these members to add Template:User Article Rescue Squadron to their page so they can be added to Category:Wikipedians in the Article Rescue Squadron? Ikip (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Admins need to be updated
editseveral of the editors who are admins are not listed as admins now. these names need to be moved up to he admin section. Ikip (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
List of members who have signed add ARS template
editMembers who have not signed or who don't have template
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Removing editors, striking out editors
editBen,
Two of the editors, Niven90 and Fahrenheit, I believe struck out their own names, check the edit history and remove them if you want.
Regarding striking out retired editors, I guess we need to decide what all wikiprojects must decide on their memberships list: do we want to have only active editors, and cull non active editors, like one of the biggest projects, military history does, or do we want to keep editors who will never be involved in the project again.
I think retired editors should be struck, and then unstruck when they come back. This is for a couple of reasons. First, when I edit the newsletter I need to know who is active and who is not. Our editor "friends" may criticize us for sending the newsletter to inactive members, and I want some kind of current list to go off of. Second, if editors want to contact these editors, it is nice to see at a glance that they are inactive. Ikip (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe we can have a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Members#Inactive members section like this project? But only include editors who have retired? Ikip (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- First off, banned users should be removed altogether. We don't want anything to do with them regardless of why they were banned. Member lists are pretty much only used to communicate with all the members, generally with a newsletter sent by a bot. I see little other use. We also aren't terribly focused on classifying who is or isn't active so if someone strikes their name let's remove it instead, changed name? update or remove, etc. On the next newsletter we can add a link to a section here for those who wish not to get a newsletter, as well as a link for those who wish to remove themselves from the project. -- Banjeboi 18:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree 100% about banned editors, I removed them all except one I mistakenly didn't see in my first edit. which I now removed.
- Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members#Inactive_members It you don't want that on the main page, you can move it here on the talk page, that is what you are suggesting correct?
- The two other editors, who struck their name themselves, let me check the edit history to make sure, then I will remove them entirely. Ikip (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Faherenhiet was a banned sock I found, so I removed him, niven 90 was an editor who struck himself out, so I removed him. There are no more strikes now in the member list. If you want to move the inactive users section to the talk page, please do. I would really prefer to keep retired editors somewhere else then in the main list. RE: Member lists are pretty much only used to communicate with all the members, generally with a newsletter sent by a bot. I agree. Ikip (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- First off, banned users should be removed altogether. We don't want anything to do with them regardless of why they were banned. Member lists are pretty much only used to communicate with all the members, generally with a newsletter sent by a bot. I see little other use. We also aren't terribly focused on classifying who is or isn't active so if someone strikes their name let's remove it instead, changed name? update or remove, etc. On the next newsletter we can add a link to a section here for those who wish not to get a newsletter, as well as a link for those who wish to remove themselves from the project. -- Banjeboi 18:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please restore those "retired" editors. You're essentially throwing them off our newsletter list presumptively. Rebecca, for instance is unretired to a degree. many users unretire. Unless they don't want the newsletter we want them to get it. -- Banjeboi 20:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- okay, I figure people will complain that we are sending info to retired editors, that is why jossi was struck out by another editor. But Jossi was also posthumously banned. We are talking about 3 editors. I will restore them.Ikip (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've removed 5 indef blocked editors. ϢereSpielChequers 15:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- okay, I figure people will complain that we are sending info to retired editors, that is why jossi was struck out by another editor. But Jossi was also posthumously banned. We are talking about 3 editors. I will restore them.Ikip (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please restore those "retired" editors. You're essentially throwing them off our newsletter list presumptively. Rebecca, for instance is unretired to a degree. many users unretire. Unless they don't want the newsletter we want them to get it. -- Banjeboi 20:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a problem many WikiProjects seem to have; membership lists grow and grow without limit. Sometimes someone makes an effort to weed out the obvious duds, sometimes not. How about this idea; put a notice on the talk page of everyone listed saying that you are verifying whether they still want to be a member and that they will be removed from the membership list if they don't respond affirmatively within 12 months. This seems like a reasonable compromise between no checking at all and pulling the trigger too soon. Comments? Guy Macon (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Data merged from mainspace ARS Members page
editThe following is information merged from: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Members to this page. (Merged by: Northamerica1000(talk) 16:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC))
Member notes
editThe following comment was added in relation to Member #34:
That's a great idea. Wikia already runs a wiki for this purpose, but there needs to be a related organization on Wikipedia that isn't associated with a particular company. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 01:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- When they were deleting 90% of the Voltron page, I created a wikia for it, and copied all the information over from when the article was at its longest. Copied all the deleted information from the Gantz article as well over to an existing but previously mostly empty wikia. But you can only create a new wikia once every so many days of your last one created, thus limiting how many articles you can save by that method. So this works out quite well. There no limit to how many pages to pile up there, so hordes of articles can be copied to it. If we could just copy the entire wikipedia over to the wikia, then we wouldn't need the wikipedia anymore at all. It'd be the same thing, only with more reasonable rules. Anyone got a tool for that, or know where to ask for one? Dream Focus 18:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- You do realize you just proposed forking Wikipedia, right? Furthermore, Wikipedia already maintains a full diff history, you can link to the desired versions of the pages, why would you copy the data? This would probably work best as a collaborative browser add-on or something. Regardless, that's counterproductive to the goal of this group, improving the current quality of AfD, so that they are not deleted. -Bigmantonyd (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- When they were deleting 90% of the Voltron page, I created a wikia for it, and copied all the information over from when the article was at its longest. Copied all the deleted information from the Gantz article as well over to an existing but previously mostly empty wikia. But you can only create a new wikia once every so many days of your last one created, thus limiting how many articles you can save by that method. So this works out quite well. There no limit to how many pages to pile up there, so hordes of articles can be copied to it. If we could just copy the entire wikipedia over to the wikia, then we wouldn't need the wikipedia anymore at all. It'd be the same thing, only with more reasonable rules. Anyone got a tool for that, or know where to ask for one? Dream Focus 18:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- A caution
We are here to attempt rescuing articles that have been sent to AfD that may be improved to meet wiki standards and so thus improve the project as a whole. Editors should leave "politics" at the door before entering. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Holiday Cheer
edit
|
Holiday Cheer | |
| Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing all ARS members Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Feel welcome to spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS |
Help Wanted to rescue potential articles about to be deleted
editDear article improvement enthusiasts: You are probably aware of the db-g13 deletion criteria, which allows deletion of abandoned Articles for Creation. There are a number of people working to save some of these draft articles, and also others who are nominating them for deletion. The current list can be found at Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions. To co-ordinate the work so that they are all checked by at least one person, there is a list of months, and letters of the alphabet within each month, here Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/G13 rescue. However, lately I am the only one working seriously at this; the others who were working with me are too busy to spend much time on it or have taken a Wikibreak right now. The ones going under the knife this week were abandoned by their creators last September, and I have managed myself to check only the ones beginning with A and B. Although I enjoy rescuing these drafts, there are too many for one person, so if anyone would like to pick out one or more to work on, or pick ones beginning with a letter of the alphabet and check them, that would be great. Some are on quite interesting topics, such as Google Business Photos, Cabuya, Costa Rica, and Robert S. Kraemer. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Concern for Project Med articles
editI am concerned about the AfD discussions as they relate to medical-related articles. The requirements for 'acceptable' references keeps 'escalating' to the point that review, survey and meata-nalysis journal articles are required for newly created articles. MEDRS is a good standard, but it is being applied at a high cost. Comments?
I want to join!
editHi! I am a new editor here. I had an account years ago but I became inactive and forget the username and password. I would like to improve articles by copyediting them, fixing spelling and punctuation errors, stuff like that. Can someone please let me know how to get started? Oh, and sorry if I am asking in the wrong place, I am a little confused! PerihanM. (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC) PerihanM. (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Netta Eames
editI'm a little rusty at WP protocols. I started an article which is now being threatened with deletion by a new page patroller. The article is about Netta Eames an author and editor from the late 19th and early 20th century. She was a mentor to Jack London and the foster mother of his 2nd wife Charmian Kittredge. I got the article noticed by publishing a lazy stub, but now I think it's a pretty good article. But the initial tagger seems vehement that it is not notable. He did swap the speedy tag for a notability tag. Any thoughts on a rescue? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)