Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion/Juliancolton

JC's experience as a newbie
Under the username I created  as a poorly-formatted and terribly organized, yet still adequately notable. I fully expected it to be tagged for cleanup or proposed for deletion, but instead, stepped in and turned it into a legitimate page. Subsequently, they left a welcome on my talk page. I must say I'm thoroughly impressed by their contributions and I suggest all other editors work to duplicate his efforts. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I deserve too much credit for that one. I had been made aware of this experiment (and had skimmed this page) just a few hours before I edited that article.   had in fact used the phrase "referenced but badly formatted stubs" and it was certainly on my mind at the time.  I'm not saying I wouldn't have cleaned it up (I have a pro-mountain POV), but I don't know if this result should count. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely this counts. The idea behind this page is to improve the new page patrol process. If we were trying to hide this process whilst it was taking place and produce a report showing just how bad things were in the fall of 2009 we would have followed a very different methodology.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)