Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Thanks/keep up the good work

I just wanted to drop a quick note saying the work you guys do is invaluable. I was impressed by the research skills of those who came to the aid of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajeev Janardan (just closed as keep). Thanks to your efforts I now have more material to expand the article with (when I get to it). Good job guys. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• You are most welcome. Perhaps we should maintain a page of testimonials like this to inspire and encourage such laudable efforts. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

Is there a policy that says we shouldn't rescue tag disamgibuation pages? That argument was recently used at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Luxembourg relations (2nd nomination) and the rescue tag on the page was repeatedly removed.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends. If the dab page is up for deletion because it's badly formed and could use a fix-up, sure. If it's up for deletion because it's conceptually flawed, then probably not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That is vandalism, pure and simple. The first AFD ended in Keep, and was then overturned apparently. The article was deleted, someone protested, and it was restored. Then, someone went and erased most of the content, in a clear act of vandalism. Anyway, you can post a Rescue tag anywhere. If someone erases it, revert them, as I have done. We need more attention brought to this article to determine what exactly is going on here. Dream Focus 06:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no policy that disambiguation pages can't be tagged for rescue. In this case especially as ARS has seen dozens of these articles come through our Wikiproject and have worked to resolved various AfD issues; there is no reason that this AfD cannot also benefit from more eyes on it. The issue isn't how can this one be improved but what best serves our readers. Frankly I think that the group working to address all bilateral article issues should be handed this one to see of there is some policy that makes sense. At the end of the day we are here for our readers, what helps inform them the best. ARS can offer some informed and often outside and dispassionate views. I know I don't care that much about those articles so comment on them what it seems obvious what to do or if it needs to be stated I'm uncertaintain so would rather keep. These are valid opinions that can help in any community discussion. -- Banjeboi 09:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, what? This is the project that improves articles up for deletion. If the article can't be meaningfully improved, then it doesn't have anything to do with this project. We've been over this repeatedly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion on what this project and its members can do or not is duly noted. There is broad concensus that ARS is here to help rescue content at XfD and there are multitudes of ways this is accomplished. The same spirit that ARS was empowered by the community at the last RfC that was done to stop your edit-warring here was that ARS may be able to help and more eyes on community discussions was hardly counter to consensus building. Rescuing content includes many issues including what title is best for an article. There is also the issue that generally there is little need to remove the rescue tag oonce it's there. It's a relatively short process and the tag should be removed by the closer. As your previous efforts to remove the {{rescue}} tag should be painfully obvious it causes more disruption to remove it even if placed in error. By edit-warring your magnifying a situation and making it all about you. Not sure if that's the goal but that certainly seems to be the outcome. -- Banjeboi 11:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You just gabbed on about me for a paragraph there instead of addressing my point. This project still isn't the project that decides what "best serves the readers." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The article has now been protected without including the tag, which, in my humble opinion, is the correct decision. PhilKnight (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, that decision, to protect to a preferred version, is counter to policy and therefore a poor choice. And AMIB, your rather myopic stance maybe helped if I restate and include the information only about ARS? Let's have a read - There is broad concensus that ARS is here to help rescue content at XfD and there are multitudes of ways this is accomplished. The same spirit that ARS was empowered by the community at the last RfC was that ARS may be able to help and more eyes on community discussions was hardly counter to consensus building. Rescuing content includes many issues including what title is best for an article. There is also the issue that generally there is little need to remove the rescue tag oonce it's there. It's a relatively short process and the tag should be removed by the closer. As your previous efforts to remove the {{rescue}} tag should be painfully obvious it causes more disruption to remove it even if placed in error. Again this project is not here to serve your desires and decrees, we work with and by the community's support. -- Banjeboi 23:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The last RFC established exactly what I said above. If it's up for deletion because it needs to be improved, this project is relevant. Otherwise, it isn't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I promised myself I wouldn't get sucked into the ongoing baiting and attempted-deletion of this project, once its 9-day hiatus had expired. But against my better instincts, I popped in. One thing I'd like to point out here. An article that cannot be improved does not belong at AfD. It should be speedy-deleted. Some editors are of the opinion that nothing at AfD can be improved. Others are of the opinion that things can and should be improved. For editors who, in lieu of actual editing-work, routinely crap on articles by smearing tags all over the top of them to object to a tag which encourages others to work on it during the one-week period it is on the chopping block is the height of hypocrisy. Dekkappai (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You can have a page which is perfect for what it is, but what it is isn't appropriate for the project. This is especially common when you move out of article space. A template that doesn't do anything useful, a non-free image that doesn't illustrate anything, a dab page that doesn't disambiguate. This project has a wide scope and that's fine, but its role is most certainly not deciding "what best serves our readers". It's improving things up for deletion that can be improved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

And your definition of what this Wikiproject is and isn't have been routinely rejected by the community. The spirit of consensus-building, that seems to be lost in your statements, is that broader input is usually helpful to determining consensus. In this case it concerns a bilateral article of which this project has been quite involved. If there was a disambiguation page discussion on a LGBT topic I would be quite surprised in the LGBT project wasn't asked for input. Your overly strict definitions of who is allowed to do what is not helpful, it's good that you want to improve content but directing other volunteers here on what they are allowed to do is not. -- Banjeboi 00:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not the project to seek broader input for determining consensus. We don't need a wikiproject that brings its members to "help" at deletion discussions, with a scope that includes any deletion discussion at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Any wikiproject can offer input at a discussion and ARS specializing in XFD. This AfD may therefore benefit from our input. -- Banjeboi 01:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to have outright confirmation that the project exists primarily to bring its members to comment at deletion discussions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

AMIB, please stop mischaracterizing this wikiproject. ARS specializing in XFD is not the same as "the project exists primarily to bring its members to comment at deletion discussions". Your toxic approach is unwelcome and disruptive here. I hope you find something constructive to do with your energy but this wikiproject is likely better off without your constant disdain and disparaging comments. That you're an admin makes your actions here even more disappointing. I hope you find work on Wikipedia which you do enjoy that doesn't involve disrupting other users. If not you might find off-Wikipedia activities are more in keeping with your interests. -- Banjeboi 01:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes yes, a paragraph about me. That's nice. That this project's scope has crept outward to include explicitly endorsing bringing its members to comment at any deletion discussion is problematic at least. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This is patently ridiculous and a waste of everyone's time, honestly. There is nothing to rescue; this ridiculous article is not going to be restored beyond its current malformed disambiguation status. Tarc (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

AMIB, you made this about you, no one else needed to. Tarc, if what you say is true then there's really no need to even have the AfD because apparently you know what's best? We have these processes to gauge consensus, your opinion on that article should go there. -- Banjeboi 02:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Where, specifically, was consensus established for this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The last RfC, which again, was a direct result of your edit-warring here resulted in a fairly strong consensus that ARS can help in all XfD. You choose to argue and otherwise disparage this project while most of the editors here continue to constructively contribute to the encyclopedia. I think your actions speak for themselves. -- Banjeboi 01:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you point me to the part where consensus was established that any mainspace page can be tagged, period? I'm not seeing where the RFC addressed that at all, and points where the RFC contradicted that.

Also, please refrain from tagging this as resolved, especially when the conversation is direct questioning of your reason for tagging it resolved. It clearly isn't resolved, and you are clearly involved in the discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Modified the resolved tag to meet your vexatious edit-warring here. The RfC addressed that XfD seemed to be approved by concensus. I encourage you to disengage from simply arguing because you didn't get your way or the larger community disagrees with you. You've made your point and generally it's moot. Are you really going to bicker and argue here on every type of RfC until you're shown the door? -- Banjeboi 02:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

{{resolved}} still isn't used to get the last word. XfD wasn't "approved by concensus[sic]"; instead, all pages which need to be fixed up were considered appropriate. You've repeatedly supported {{rescue}} tagging regardless of whether the page in question needed repair, in order to "bring more eyes to the debate". I was curious what discussion established consensus that this was an appropriate use of this project's tools. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Your persistence in restating the same "concern" is duly noted. To, again, answer your assertion the last RfC that your edit-warring prompted indeed supported that non-article XfDs were fine. The little zinger here is that in one of the outsiders views - recall I invited them to stop the editing warring on the close of the RfC itself - was that the tag likely shouldn't be used on any item that couldn't be improved. So you may ask yourself, who is the person who decides an item couldn't be improved? Indeed an XfD is because an editor thinks that at item can't be improved and of all those items at XfD the {{rescue}} tag is added to a small percentage of items that someone else thinks can be improved. So the answer here is that the XfD discussion itself is what is used to decide if an item can be improved or not. In this case the quick question was could the tag be used ona disambiguation article - the answer is, of course. In general if ARS folks can do something they will, if they can't they won't. I marked this as resolved because this is an item at AfD and there is little doubt it's within the acceptable use. I hope your concerns have been addressed at least to answer why the actions taken have occurred even if you sharply disagree with them. -- Banjeboi 23:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It established that XfDs were fine when the concerns raised could be solved with editing. Originally, this project's scope was articles up for deletion which can be improved with editing. The RFC was whether that scope should be expanded, and the consensus was to expand it to pages up for deletion which can be improved with editing. I want to know where consensus was established to expand the scope to pages up for deletion, period. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If you would perhaps re-read what I wrote just above there was rough consensus reached in that RfC which wasn't about expanding as much as clarifying scope. You see it different and we may have to agree to disagree here. Likewise, again, I'm not comfortable being the sole person who decides if something can be improved or not, and I'm equally uncomfortable with any one other person making that decision. Luckily Wikipedia operates by WP:Consensus at XfD discussions where the community can discuss what can or cannot be improved. Indeed if someone tags something for AfD or for rescue and they were mistaken in their assessment, the community will still likely make the right decision on what to do with the item. If not there are other consensus processes that can be employed. We work with other editors here and try to do so collegially and civilly. -- Banjeboi 01:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, call it whatever you'd like, expanding or clarifying or whatever. I'm more concerned with the end result. I'm suggesting that {{rescue}} be applied whenever someone in good faith believes that an article can be improved to address the arguments made for deletion in a deletion discussion, and that it be removed when it's obvious that the deletion arguments have nothing to do with the state of the page but instead the page's concept. All that's required is some sort of reasonable suggestion that the article problems can be addressed with editing. For some examples: List of the verified oldest women was not a {{rescue}} candidate by this standard, since it was more or less perfect for its stated task, and the deletion discussion was entirely based around whether this task was necessary or not. Getting more eyes on its deletion discussion may or may not have been an admirable goal, but it wasn't the goal of this Wikiproject. (I use it as an example not to rehash the debate, but simply to illustrate that discussions can center around things other than notability or article quality.) If "Well, we can get more eyes on the discussion" becomes the all-purpose justification for the {{rescue}} tag, then the scope has increased, and that shouldn't happen without some sort of discussion.

If we "agree to disagree" on this point, then the point is not resolved, and will need to be resolved at some later point. Do take care not to describe it as some sort of resolved policy. In any event, we both agree that issues that can be resolved with editing are perfect for {{rescue}}; for example, if a dab page is up for deletion because someone feels it's unexpandable or malformed, it's a perfect candidate. The disagreement is how far beyond that point it extends, and there is indeed a disagreement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I was marking resolved not your issues but that the question asked was answered. Although your points are theoreticly interesting it still puts one person in the position of deciding if something is able to be fixed in some way. We don't do that, we have XfD for such purposes. Personally this feels like round umpteenth of you wanting to play sheriff here - if condition X, Y and Z aren't met then I will ____ - and that's been rather disasterous in practice. I don't care who comes along to this project if thier interest is to help and that is coupled with a spirit of cooperation. We have many tagged items that ARS members simply don't seem that interested in investing energy. This woud indeed suggest that even if someone tags an item individual editors choose what they work on. Rescue tag has never is still doesn't equal kkep vote or must be saved but merelly that a group of editors who specialize in AfD issues will have a look. As a default we end up helping a lot of newby editors understand Wikipedia and why things are deleted. This is a very common experience and anyone who wants to help ARS certainly can. -- Banjeboi 04:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

But it's not about fixing articles "in some way". That's {{cleanup}}. It means fixing articles to address the arguments for deletion. If the concerns can't be resolved with editing the article, {{rescue}} isn't appropriate. The {{rescue}} tag becoming "Come comment on this deletion discussion!" is what I'm trying to prevent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The stated argument for deletion is often flawed and itself not in keeping with policy, AfD is abused. If only items that could never be improved were sent to AfD we wouldn't have much to do here. And you seem to be suggesting it's in some wrong that someone, regardless of affilation, shouldn't comment on an article unless they are actively working to fix it. That's also not how AfD works. Ideally ARS members would help shine the light and lead the way but frankly I have little idea who is or isn't an ARS member except I see their work improving articles. So their really isn'ta basis to preventing anyone, including ARS members, from any XfD discussion and this has been gone over many times. Closers weight the arguments based in policy, empty !votes and discussion don't have much affect. If someone is just blowing air in a discussion then their wasting their energy and even Jimmy would tell you it's their right as a volunteer to define what work they do. In short the tag sometimes does exactly as we would hope, sometimes it doesn't but at the end of teh day it's about work to improve content that makes a difference. -- Banjeboi 04:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The stated argument for deletion is often flawed and itself not in keeping with policy, AfD is abused.

Correcting this perceived injustice is far beyond this project, or any project. We absolutely do not a Wikiproject exists to come to discussions of any topic and tell people that they're wrong. Self-appointed meta moderator projects have been repeatedly established to be inappropriate for Wikipedia. I'm suggesting a project that exists to counter arguments for deletion by any means is a project that is far off the rails. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would call AfD being flawed a perceived injustice as much as a sad reality. And if it were not true we would have next to nothing to do here if it weren't true. And yes, finding ways to help AfD function better is part and parcel to what we do here. The less bad AfD noms we get the more we can focus on articles that can and should be rescued, ergo we could improve them more. I used to do complete article overhauls, i no longer have time for that as so many bad noms clog the system. I'm glad you agree that self-appointed moderators have been rejected, that seems to be a strong undercurrent of your comments here. Like bad AfD noms and faulty rescue tag use the system is still somewhat self-correcting without a sheriff. If you find a Wikiproject that "exists to counter arguments for deletion by any means" then likely you should ask for more eyes at the admin boards. It's likely it won't be tolerated in that form for long although Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion would seem to come close to that. -- Banjeboi 02:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

And yes, finding ways to help AfD function better is part and parcel to what we do here.

No, no, no. A thousand times no. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The disambiguation page this thread was originally about has been deleted. On the subject of the scope of this wikiproject, I think it would be preferable to turn the article rescue side from a club into a process. In my humble opinion, there should be a wikiproject dedicated to improving the deletion process, but unlike WP:SCISSORS or WP:ARS it shouldn't be dominated by deletionists or inclusionists. PhilKnight (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. We certainly do look to finding ways to help AfD work better, our talkpages are full of them and many of the same ideas have already gone through WT:AFD or elsewhere and either implemented or dicounted. Similarly we discuss ways to assist newby editors from even creating a soon-to-be-deleted page. These discussions go on all over Wikipedia and this Wikiproject is no different except that we have perhaps some broader perspective and working wisdon of what may or may not work. So sorry A Man In Black what happens at AfD upstream directly impacts what we do down here. That's been true since our inception and isn't likely to change. PhilKnight, I would think WP:Scissors and WP:ARS would actually be the wikiprojects to assist in identifying areas but if you want to start a new wikiproject devoted to fixing AfD we'd love to hear about it when you do. I'm otherwise opposed to efforts to again dismantle this Wikiproject however. -- Banjeboi 02:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive use of rescue template

Drawn Some added the rescue tag to about 60 articles over 2 days. It started with what I think was a good faith rescue tagging of Charlie the Unicorn, but it is indiscriminate now. I have reverted about 50 tags and left a handful, and I've warned Drawn Some.[1] Fences and windows (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have seen two ridiculous uses of the rescue tag in the past two days. Nilutpalgogoivilla is a copyright violation with a title that has nothing to do with its subject matter. If someone were actually interested in writing an article about Arun Sarma, then starting off with the article under discussion is not the way to go about it. Florida Whig Party is either a keep or a redirect, there's nothing to rescue there. Is the Rescue Squadron becoming dominated by trolls? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This bolsters, IMHO, the idea of an automated bot that places a "so you tagged an item for rescue" tag. Some users, hopefully well intended have nommed batch articles (one AfD with 10-25 articles) so we would have 10-25 listings here. Our ARSBot used to cope with me bundling those together but seems not to anymore. The bot administrator has been unresponsive but I imagine we'll get that worked out soon enough. Another issue is a mass spree of AfD noms to articles that likely should have be taken to a merge process instead opr are in one subject area, like novels or the bilateral relations articles. These too result in a large batch of articles coming in. The third area is simply newby editors who may not have the perspective to know what's potential rescue-able so tag anything they like. I see Drawn Some (talk · contribs) as being more experienced but perhaps confused on the rescue concept. If one isn't willing to make a compelling "keep" - or at least "comment" - statement about the article's meeting policies for inclusion and addressing nom's concerns then I question why they feel the item is recuable. -- Banjeboi 22:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The rescue tag is vulnerable to gaming or trolling, or just simple ignorance of its use, but so is much of Wikipedia. I was bold and didn't wait for Drawn Some to explain, I just removed the tags.

Who then was a gentleman? nominated both the articles he's complaining about, so of course he doesn't want them rescued, but the addition of the tag on the Florida Whig Party was reverted by the same user who added it 20 minutes later. I've seen a lot of bad deletion nominations, but that doesn't mean we need to get rid of AfD.

Perhaps there should be guidelines on the removal of inappropriate rescue tags? Fences and windows (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I did in fact nominate both articles, though I'm inclined to withdraw my nomination of Florida Whig Party, but you did not address the nonsensical tagging for rescue. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, and just as many unfortunately disruptively use the AfD template as well. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you implying that my nominations were disruptive? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, my comment is a general one and not a reference to your nominations, but rather to my own experience with other nominations in which editors want to merge so instead of starting a merge discussion start an AfD, or renominate something kept multiple times, etc. I am not saying anything about your nominations, but about AfDs I keep seeing that are frivolous. Obviously nominations for copy vios are of course legitimate. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed a few myself and sent notes to folks who have added the rescue tag but made no comments in the AfD. We may want to make that a priority. That users who tag need to comment on every XfD they tag. It can be a neutral "Comment" or "Keep", "Merge" etc but needs to clarify why and how the items can be rescued. -- Banjeboi 01:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we must also comment in the AfDs if we rescue template something. A few times now I have tagged something, worked on it some, but it was clear that the AfD would not result in delete, so tossing in an extra comment might be unnecessary (and in my case, sometimes we are better off when I don't comment as it is pretty clear some follow me to oppose me). Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

To me that example is the exception. We're trying to encourage common sense and consensus-building as part of applying the template. I don't think we could enact any rule as much as prioritize this concept. -- Banjeboi 02:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Who then was a gentleman?, I don't think your nominations were disruptive either. I do think it should be almost obligatory to try to improve an article you tag for rescue, either by active editing or sourcing, and failing that an explanation of why you think the article is salvageable should be added to the AfD page. Fences and windows (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting anywhere in asking Drawn Some for an explanation of their rescue tagging; they just say I'm being uncivil and assuming bad faith, and they're asking for me to retract and strike through a comment I made about their tagging seeming to be indiscriminate. I'm not going to engage with Drawn Some anymore on this topic. Someone else might want to ask an admin to look into their rescue tagging; Jennavecia is already aware of it from the Chris Garrett AfD discussion. Fences and windows (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hasn't Drawn Some complained about the Rescue Squadron before? Perhaps he is tagging a lot of random articles, to try to prove a point. You can't randomly run around tagging dozens of things without a reason, no matter what the tag is. Dream Focus 17:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add that Drawn Some isn't on the Member's list. And reading [2] he sounds like he might be doing this just to be pointy. Dream Focus 17:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I hope this is not meant as some kind of distraction from all the bilateral relation articles. I mean I want to WP:AGF, but not the point of naivety. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

1. All of the articles I tagged met the requirements for ARS and none of them fell into the exclusions.
2. There is no requirement that one comment when tagging or that one work on the articles. Cgodsimmons doesn't bother, and neither does A nobody.
3. It was nowhere near 100 articles. I don't appreciate Fences and windows making such accusations in a thread (where someone later said the tag was appropriate).
4. The tags should not have been removed. That is specifically forbidden. I am again asking that they be replaced until the AfDs end.
5. If you're going to discuss someone on a thread then you need to notify them.
6. I again accepting the offer for more eyes on this since there seems to be a presumption of wrongdoing and bad faith on my part when neither is true. Please ask for an RFC or whatever it takes to get more eyes on my actions. Drawn Some (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I frequently do "bother" to work on the articles I tag as well as those tagged by others and when necessary do comment in the AfDs as well as seen by any of the items found at User:A Nobody/awards. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I honestly meant "Cgodsimmons doesn't always bother, and neither does A Nobody", but I'm not going to go back and sneak it in. I know that you do a lot of work on articles that are up for deletion. Drawn Some (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(Ignoring personal attack on me concerning an issue with which I have no involvement). My comments on the many articles tagged for deletion are forthcoming. I'm haven't gotten around to commenting on all of the deletion pages yet or improving the underlying articles. The best I have been able to do thusfar is focus on a few and rescue tag the rest. This has become a job for about twenty people and I actually have a real life some of the time.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What personal attack? No personal attack was intended, I didn't make one. Drawn Some (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I was reacting to your tone (I don't "bother" to make an effort, etc. etc.) I'm glad you didn't intend it that way. Water under the bridge.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering the lynch mob circling me here and on my talk page, I think I'm being quite civil. I realize that you haven't been involved in the libel and threats so I apologize if I offended you. Drawn Some (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If you make a list of the ones you templated in order of priority, I will gladly see what I can do for them. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I already spent a great deal of time researching and marking them only to have someone go behind me and undo all of my work, against the rules here. I labeled one today that is about open source software that is not my area of greatest competency. Drawn Some (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Grph. Having put this thread together with the wikie-beuracrat style messages I got demanding I explain my rescue tag usage in the relevant AfDs I reach the conclusion that I am one of the presumed trolls here. Which is a bit annoying, TBH. FWIW if I put a resuce tag on something it's because I think that an article could be resuced if some time is put into finding sources on it, which is largely the point of the tag. Now, I may put in something more specific in the AfD, but I don't really see that it should be a requirement or that its absessence should be an attempt at disruption. Artw (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Even proper use of the rescue tag will draw fire if you do it too often or aren't on the list of "members" of the squadron. Drawn Some (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Drawn Some, you thought a Lancashire bus station, Rawtenstall bus station, was salvageable? I said 100 as a guesstimate, it was more like 60. You had several editors independently question your use of the rescue tag, so perhaps you should take a look at what you did. I'm not going to withdraw or strike anything I've said or spend time putting back tags I believe were inappropriate. Fences and windows (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Fences and windows, I replaced the tag myself on the Rawtenstall bus station article and included the references to clearly demonstrate its notability and added a great deal to the text. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not notable and shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you have any sense of shame at all you will comment at the AfD for the article in support of it since you have done so much to stand in the way of it being saved despite others' efforts. I would also ask you to remain respectful of your fellow editors. I am also asking you to change the heading on this section of this talk page as it is uncivil and not WP:AGF. These are core principles. There has been no disruption on my part but some others might ask themselves if they might have been disruptive unintentionally. Drawn Some (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would I argue for keeping a non-notable bus station? ARS isn't an inclusionist club. You're starting to sound like a martyr, but there's no pitchfork- and torch-wielding mob, just editors asking questions of you. Go back to normal editing, but don't be so trigger-happy with the rescue template in future. You may have had the best of intentions, but the reason it is disruptive to tag too many articles is that it results in a lack of focus of the ARS on those articles that are most able to be saved, i.e. with signs of independent notability and secondary sources available. If every non-notable bus station is tagged, it distracts from genuinely worthy articles. It also fosters ill will against the ARS if editors at AfD see articles with no hope of rescue being tagged. And while you have now made some effort on Rawtenstall bus station, drive-by rescue tagging on so many articles isn't the best approach, as it leaves the effort in rescuing up to other editors, and gives the other editors no clue as to your thoughts on why or how it can be rescued. I consider this matter closed. Fences and windows (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)