This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj (talk | contribs) at 13:40, 9 May 2009 (→Barnstar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:40, 9 May 2009 by Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj (talk | contribs) (→Barnstar)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Click here to leave me a message| Awards and articles I created. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/RfA_Report
Best welcome template: User:AxG/WikiWelcome1 wikipediareview: History of wikipedia | |||||||||||
A shiny barnstar!
|
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
| For your elegant and clear solution to some vexing situations I hereby award you this shiny barnstar you can play catch with or trade for superpowers or even put on a display shelf for all to behold and admire. The Article Rescue Squadron is a band of troupers who work in stressful environments to save content worth keeping and your help is very much appreciated. -- Banjeboi 11:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC) |
Progress
User_talk:PhilKnight#Sussing_forward_motion_at_ARS, no promises but we may have some promising ideas on the horizon. -- Banjeboi 18:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Straw poll for ARS
This is the work area for a straw poll for the WP:Article Rescue Squadron, it is treated as a userpage, as per WP:User page: "In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission." I have invited a half dozen editors to edit and build this section.
Can Article Rescue Squadron behave like all other wikiprojectsMisplaced Pages editors in other wikiprojects are pretty much free to post whatever links they want, this includes deletion reviews, articles for deletion, etc. should Article Rescue Squadron be able to also? Precendence
Template
|
- Isn't the issue more that the posts should be neutral so canvassing concerns are moot? -- Banjeboi 04:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
|
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
| This is an excellent idea for Foreign relations of Argentina by country to deal with the minor bilateral relationships, just 1 suggestion for improvement can we sort by continent/region? LibStar (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC) |
- First of all, thank you so much for the barnstar, it was unexpecedt and very appreciated.
- We are acutally thinking of making it into one big graph, we can include a continent region, and make is searchable. See: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force for our discussion. Ikip (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
ARS
I understand what you're saying, but the policy ideas and canvassing and such are ratcheting up the drama, and in turn, are driving up the trouble you're dealing with from other users. Deletion issues have always been a nasty business on Misplaced Pages, and I doubt that's going to change in the future; it's why it's necessary to use a bit of strategy, a bit of tact.
People can't argue with the improvement of articles. If someone nominates an article for deletion, and someone else improves it and references it to the point where it gets kept, it's a net benefit for the project, and with the way policies are these days, that work really can't be challenged. It's useful, it gets results, and it's actually fairly free of drama. Pointing people in the direction articles that might be suitable for that treatment, too, shouldn't be too much of a drastic fuss, as long as it's done properly; the categories and such should be pretty easily defensible.
The problem is that when you try to shift things towards changing policy, or turning it into a lobby group, well, to be blunt, you're going to start pissing people off. On Misplaced Pages, that sort of thing attracts drama; whether it's right or whether it's wrong, it just does - and it rarely ends up with the desired result. The fact is that oftentimes these things come down to politics. It might be promoting the free flow of information, but it's just not helping your case. It's that sort of stuff that's attracting the people who're bringing the trouble you're complaining about - where if you stick to purely pushing for the improvement of articles, you're standing on much more solid ground.
As it stands, you're about to walk into a massive kerfuffle over the purpose of that page, with a likely huge and lengthy RfC about what people want out of it. You're going to wind up in arguments with people for a good couple of months, and I guarantee that it won't lead to any more notable articles being kept. On the other hand, if you settle for the indisputable, and focus it tightly on improving articles on the edge of the abyss, you're going to get a lot further, both in terms of articles kept and establishing precedents for keeping things (I can think of several areas where everything in the whole area would have been deleted before people doing this sort of work came along, which now that they're referenced whenever they get to AfD result in near-inherent-notability for that area), and you're going to save yourself a whole lot of messy drama. Rebecca (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)