Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion/The ed17
article 5
[edit]Colosseum (talk · contribs)—not an alt account of me, but someone I know from awhile back—created 70 Pattern Webbing[1]. It was tagged for G2 a minute later [2], even though it was not a test page and not an obvious hoax. I added a link/source and a stub tag.[3] —Ed (talk • contribs) 01:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- the article may pass speedy, but it's totally inadequate even with the source added & should have been tagged for notability (which I just did). It's only a type of cloth used it making military belts and weapon slings, & I had to check the reference to find out even that much. I am not convinced that this is a significant part of military equipment, & if there are other such pattens it should at least be merged. The counterpart of excessive deletion tagging is removing the deletion tag without indicating major problems. Unless a further explanation isgiven I will afd--not prod,because I'd want to make it visible to get opinions. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Battleships
[edit]I've created a new article. It was patrolled almost immediately and given an {{article issues}}, but I removed that tag to see what happens. It might actually stay in the state it is in right now, though, which is terrible. :| User was not welcomed. —Ed (talk • contribs) 17:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I also created a second article, which received a CSD tag twice before a good Samaritan came along and saved it. Username Encouraçado (talk · contribs), articles Brazilian battleship Riachuelo and (soon to be moved per WP:NC-SHIPS) Aquidaban. My thoughts about the experience:
- I really like the temperament and helpfulness of User:Bonewah, who I dealt with on Riachuelo, but he didn't wikify the article, which would have taken about two minutes, and he didn't welcome me—he only added tags to it. Bonewah also left a message on the talk page of the article—where I could (conceivably) have missed it—rather than my user talk. Overall, I give him a C+, mostly due to the lack of a welcome and not doing basic wikifying. If these had been done, I'd say A- to A+. In either case, though, I am impressed with his attitude and willingness to explain things.
- I don't really like the beginning actions User:WikiDan61, who came and speedied the article after seven minutes (under A1), but he did do okay (second bullet point).
- To be fair, I was trying to confuse by using the Portuguese word for "battleship" (encouraçado), but a simple google search of "Aquidaban", "Brazil", and "1906" (the year is needed to filter out a town and was included in the article) brings this, easily proving notability.
- But here is the flip side: I was welcomed with Twinkle's speedying mechanism, which is better than nothing—and then after speedying the article a second time he left me this note, which clarified his problem with the article directly to me, using my user talk page so I couldn't miss it.
- I thought that I had trapped WikiDan into a major mistake, but his talk page message to me, showing why he couldn't search, makes me give him a B-. Next time I'd recommend Google Translate. :-)
- Lastly, a hug, a cookie and an A+ goes to Casmith 789 (talk · contribs), who removed the CSD tag and is currently improving the article. —Ed (talk • contribs) 19:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, this is a surprise! I recently (rather recently) took to patrolling the CSD log to see if there were any articles with incorrect CSD tags or which could be salvaged; this article clearly didn't meet A1 :) Thanks for the hug and the cookie! -- Casmith_789 (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well you have my thanks for your work. :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 19:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the constructive criticism, point taken about not welcoming and being more friendly, ill work on it in the future. In my defense wrt not wikifying the article, I think the haze gray listing for it is incorrect. The article says the ship was never built, but a quick google search turns up another HG link which has a picture of the ship and a New York Times article says that it has a displacement of 5700 tons. So its not like I wasent working on the article. Still, point taken again, ill work on that in the future. Hopefully this will reflect happily on me as I whine about my letter grade ;-) Bonewah (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- The Riachuelo I was talking about was a never-built design of about 1913ish, but apparently there was an earlier battleship... Take a look at Hazefray and compare it to http://books.google.com/books?id=V2r_TBjR2TYC&pg=PA405&dq=Conway%27s+1906-1921+Riachuelo#v=onepage&q=&f=false ; trust me, this is real. :-P —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the constructive criticism, point taken about not welcoming and being more friendly, ill work on it in the future. In my defense wrt not wikifying the article, I think the haze gray listing for it is incorrect. The article says the ship was never built, but a quick google search turns up another HG link which has a picture of the ship and a New York Times article says that it has a displacement of 5700 tons. So its not like I wasent working on the article. Still, point taken again, ill work on that in the future. Hopefully this will reflect happily on me as I whine about my letter grade ;-) Bonewah (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well you have my thanks for your work. :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 19:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, this is a surprise! I recently (rather recently) took to patrolling the CSD log to see if there were any articles with incorrect CSD tags or which could be salvaged; this article clearly didn't meet A1 :) Thanks for the hug and the cookie! -- Casmith_789 (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just noting for posterity (it's been 15 years and this happens sometimes) that the page history for Riachuelo has inexplicably ended up at the page title User:The ed17/Sandbox/Brazilian battleship Riachuelo, which leaves us with the very confusing situation where the first revision of the current article at Brazilian battleship Riachuelo is a redirect to itself... page history can be quite silly sometimes, huh? Especially since the actual article that Ed was writing is located at Brazilian battleship Riachuelo (1914)... casualdejekyll 01:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)