Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion/The ed17

article 5
&mdash;not an alt account of me, but someone I know from awhile back&mdash;created 70 Pattern Webbing. It was tagged for G2 a minute later, even though it was not a test page and not an obvious hoax. I added a link/source and a stub tag. — 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
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, 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&mdash;he only added tags to it. Bonewah also left a message on the talk page of the article&mdash;where I could (conceivably) have missed it&mdash;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&mdash;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, 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)
 * 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)