Misplaced Pages

Cool! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I LOVE this one and speaks to the idea of saving an article as well. I think we could have more than one anyway. Benjiboi 07:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is nice! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 15:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

One more:

This one also nicely ties in our project's regular logo. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 15:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Howabout combining the helicopter and this one and simply adding the life-preserver onto the star like we just pulled it from the river? Benjiboi 19:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea if anyone can do it!! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That would make the life preserver pretty tiny, though. I don't think it will work that well, but I can try tonight. --Thespian 20:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe make the helicopter image a wee bit bigger and tweak the life-preserver to pop more. Benjiboi 21:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Making the Helicopter bigger is actually going to worsen the problem. the issue is that barnstar (w/copter) is already bigger than most barnstars, and the barnstar is little. So making the copter bigger is not the right response; if anything, I would make it smaller or find a different copter for it. But you're still going to have a life preserver that's about 4 pixels high at that size, and there's not a lot you can do at that size with it to make it pop more; it's just Too Tiny. --Thespian 21:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I should note that the image I linked is Barnstar rescue 04.png. There are other images in that numbering sequence with the same theme: 1, 2, and 3, and a different helicopter.--chaser - t 21:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the helicopter one we have and it is just a barnstar so see what it looks like and we can tweak from there. If the helicopter can't get bigger then simply enlarge the star a bit. Benjiboi 22:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Another idea would be to maybe have just the life preserver as a "level 1" award for someone who rescues one article and the one with the helicopter and the life preserver as a "level 2" award for someone who has rescued multiple articles? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be a keen idea. I can make the barnstars match, and then size will be less relevant, because anyone who rescues several articles will have seen the single one a time or two ;-) --Thespian 04:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to see that nice response! I do think we should start giving these out somehow, as I've noticed some really commendable successes thus far. Although the following article does not have an ARS tag, I think Empty2005 might merit such recognition for this effort. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This is really OT, but I can't resist sharing the literal war story of a friend of mine, who retired from the Air Force as an E-8 parajumper, with every intention of getting his doctorate and teaching at the university level. Somehow, friends got him to first take "one more tour" in a protective detail in Iraq (mostly as a paramedic), and then, when he had taught for another semester, got him for one last one.

He wasn't as lucky on this tour; I think it was suggestive when he said, very calmly, that he really appreciated how quickly the British got fighters and tanks to where they were ambushed. He brightened somewhat, and brought up the old saying "guns don't kill people. People kill people", and explained that his gun saved him. It wasn't that he used it, but he was wearing a M1911, in a shoulder holster, in an upside-down vehicle. A bullet smashed the pistol, but also kept it from going into his chest.

I wonder if I should ask him about PJs and Barnstars? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Read this on Slashdot, relevant to the project

The comments by Slashdotters might be more interesting than the article: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/31/0328239 Ichormosquito 16:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, notability as we now define it will soon be pointless, when you will be able to dredge up anything everybody and his dog has ever said about anybody on the net. I think we must go from a quantitative (a.k.a the Hated Google Test) to a qualitative one, e.g. "how good an article could it possibly be, given we've got all the sources we could possibly have"?--victor falk 23:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Admissions to the ICU

Survivors can now be admitted to the ICU: Misplaced Pages:Intensive Care Unit#Articles having survived Afd admitted by the Article Rescue Squadron

I think we need to discuss the practical details on how this should be done. To consider: Misplaced Pages:Intensive Care Unit#To Admit an Article to the ICU and Misplaced Pages:Intensive Care Unit#To Discharge an Article from the ICU. --victor falk 23:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If one needs help

I am a member of this "squadron", but unfortunately I have very little time to browse regularly through AfD lists. I like to do 1-2 things at a time, not 100, so... If you need help, and see this, please leave me a note here. I can not promiss help within minutes, neither a wisard's stick, but I can be at your side and honestly help with all I can. :Dc76\ 06:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/British House of Commons

A bit off-topic for this project, but the skills are the same. This article was written by User:Lord Emsworth some years ago, and promoted, deservedly, to FA. But this was before the days of in-line citation, and the references (which Emsworth appears to have used in his usual scholarly fashion) are listed at the foot. Would you be interested in rescuing this FA status? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A bit of a late response but you might do better to enlist the League of Copy Editors; although the skill sets are similar the motivations and therefore style is much different and they are experienced at such challenges. Benjiboi 05:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

AGF is backwards with AfDs; and vote stacking should be irrelevant

I've been paying more attention lately to the AfD process, after I discovered what to me is an obvious sock puppet who has done nothing but propose AfDs or (delete content)(redirect) since registration, targeting articles in a particular field, removing information, often sucessfully, that might be used as arguments against his apparent POV. (From the original edits, the target of his ire was blatant.)

What I saw, reviewing the successful deletions, was that, apparently, nobody interested in the topic of the article had noticed the AfD. In the field involved, many articles have been created by experts, and, indeed, their work frequently does not initially meet Misplaced Pages sourcing standards. A standard and legitimate response is to place a citation needed or other tag on the article, not to propose deletion. This particular serial drive-by nominator would allege content problems, sometimes claiming that finding reliable source would be impossible. Most nominator claims were false; for example, the AFD on one particular organization's article claimed that its web site was the work of one single person, and solely original research, when any examination of that site would have found contrary information. (That organization was probably of marginal notability at the time. Now, more than a year later, it is clearly notable, in my opinion, and I've seen excerpts from a forthcoming book about it, published by a major publisher.) Anyone who knew the topic would have recognized the misrepresentations. Yet, apparently, many vote on AfDs with "Delete" without actually doing any research. They seem to assume good faith on the part of the nominator. That's an error.

Basically, the common-law principle underlying AGF is that testimony is presumed true unless controverted. With an AfD, we have *inherently* contradictory testimony, frequently. We should assume good faith on the part of the article creator and all those who worked on it as well, so the claims of a nominator should *never* be taken as accurate unless verified.

In a number of AfDs, there was the AfD and a "delete" vote within minutes, not nearly enough time to do any significant research. At a recent RfA, I voted against an administrator candidate because he had been such a delete voter; in the end, his was the only delete vote, because this particular AfD got noticed by people who understood the field. When he noted that this was not one of his finer moments, and said he'd be more careful in the future, I changed my vote to support....

The claim of vote stacking is particularly interesting. Misplaced Pages process generally suffers from what I call participation bias. That is, a particular controversy may attract partisans; plus participation in many AfDs is very small. The latter may actually be quite proper, if those who voted actually did some research trying to find evidence for notability. However, the number of votes is supposed to be irrelevant; rather, the standard is properly the cogency of the arguments presented. Frankly, twere it up to me, I'd remove votes from AfD pages that are, for example, "Delete per nom." Likewise Keep or Delete votes with no facts. Voters should be *responsible* for their votes; a "per nom" vote should be a declaration that the voter has verified every fact alleged by the nominator. What should be actual practice with AfDs would b to separate "votes" from arguments. There is still room for raw votes, but, properly, the discussion of notability should follow standard NPOV practice, though with greatly reduced verifiability standards. For example, someone might argue based on personal knowledge. That's testimony, and it would be admissible in a court of law, so it should likewise be in AfDs; however, the source of claims in an AfD should be stated. "I knew him personally, and X was true, I witnessed it."

In one ironic example, the AfD for Blood electrification, there was a delete argument: "Proven quackery" or something like that. Now, if Blood electrification was "proven quackery," -- which it might be, it is certainly quack medicine in my opinion -- surely the proof could be referenced in the article, thus confirming at the same time notability and removing possible POV bias by not having that material included. However, clearly, there is an organization of editors dedicated to removing "quackery" from Misplaced Pages, even where the quackery is notable. In the case of Blood electrification, I found an FTC complaint (followed by a consent decree) against a provider of equipment used for this process, that specifically mentioned "blood electrification." Reliable source, notable quackery. These editors, or some of them, are not concerned with improving articles, they are concerned with, effectively, censorship, protecting the public from error and misleading claims. And editing articles to balance out POV claims in them, and to remove unsourced claims if they cannot be verified, that's too much work. Much, much faster to run an AfD. Almost all delete voters in the Blood electrification AfD, who presented arguments, claimed that the article was POV. I went over the article, removing nonsense, but most of it was already balanced, not POV, though sometimes inadequately sourced. And I argued that if anyone thought the article was seriously POV, and beyond easy rescue, they could stub it to a definition and give the article some time. Frankly, I don't understand why that AfD was closed as Delete. I see no explanation except for the number of votes.

Again, some ironies: there was a canvassing warning posted in this AfD. Yet no evidence of actual vote-stacking in the keep direction. The nominator did not give any arguments at all. My own review of the evidence presented was that (1) most delete arguments were based on alleged content problems, (2) some were based on an opinion that reliable source would be impossible to find, and (3) few were based on non-notability. Given that, with about an hour's research, I did find some level of RS, and reported that back to the AfD, I'd have expected the admin closing to pay attention to this evidence. However, there was no explanation with the closing, just "The result was delete." I can say what this looks like to me: Neil counted the votes and/or followed his own opinion. What policy or guideline was followed? Mystery to me. I've seen quite a few AfDs like this. When an AfD is clear and there is little or no dissent, and policy application is obvious, fine. But that was not the case here. I did not, in fact, see a cogent argument for deletion. --Abd (talk) 02:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Really thoughtful essay! I added a link to it on my userpage as number 12: . Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

passing by, I think the specific source in the blood electrification example given is not a good one--the "FTC complaint (followed by a consent decree)" takes place in every complaint FTC carries through to a conclusion, whether or not important. a routine law enforcement action does not make something notable. It's like deriving notability from a police blotter. This is not a comment of the debate over that article in general, just the RS example chosen. Disclosure: i !voted Delete, and will again until there is a real source. At this pt, the major source of notability for it has been the articles inserted on its behalf in WP. Not that I am happy with the way we do AfDs. The simplest thing that could help them attainable at present is wider participation, to eliminate the cabal effect one way or another. DGG (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG. The FTC complaint contains reports of the advertising content used by the defendant. While it's not conclusive as a fact, it is reliable enough to use with attribution, and what is in the consent decree is even more useful, though far less extensive (I did not look at it again to write this). My belief is that an NPOV, verifiable article can be written on the topic, but it's work. I excluded Misplaced Pages from my searches, as is proper. I also worked on the article, removing inappropriate material and some POV bias, but to do a good job of that would have required much more research than the hour or two I spent, total. The point is that there is such a thing as "blood electrification," there is some theoretical basis in experiment for it -- used way beyond reason, as is common with quackery -- and there are products being sold to do it. It deserves a stub, at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 05:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

but everything is advertised, and not everything is notable. That's how the FTC came to hear about it. The content would be usable, if the subject were notable. DGG (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Rescue

Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Benjiboi 21:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep without restrictions. Benjiboi 03:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)