Talk:De Wadden

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 23 September 2023 by reviewer AntientNestor (talk · contribs).

Reverting this article back to it's original state when I first made it is frankly disgusting. It is now full of wrong information, missing so much, you have removed EVERYTHING without checking what is and what isn't 'poorly sourced' according to your own words. I seem to be the only one who cares about this ship and it's really upsetting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stardust5980 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My father in law is Kenneth Kennedy, the last private owner of DeWadden. Reversion of all changes made has changed the status of the entire article to incorrect.

What can be done to mitigate this issue? Kerrylilys (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored to version 1188783115. However, I do think some sections, particularly the Kenneth Kennedy part, are too long and contain subjective and irrelevant information and could do with a editing or rewriting. I've referred to this article before and found it a very helpful source, thanks for your work @Stardust5980. Orange sticker (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, thank you so so much! This means the absolute world to me😭 I can understand why you think that, when I can get around to it I will have a look at condensing it properly. I'm not a very good summariser to be honest. I'm glad my work has helped you out! Stardust5980 (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing Article Revision[edit]

To add to my previous statement on this talk page, I would like to explain my case better.

I will cover both claims, 'excessively detailed' and 'poorly sourced' seperately.

excessively detailed - isn't the point of Wikipedia to have all available information of a thing in one place? I created and continuously updated this article to ensure that there was an easy, accessible place to find EVERY fact I could find about her. I care about this ship so much and this project was my way of giving back and ensuring that the history of this ship lives on. It was the most dense publicly available record of the ship before it was reverted to original form.

poorly sourced - I can assure you every single one of my sources is not poor. The only source I can consider being poor is the book 'All At Sea' as the book is not actually publicly available as it was never published, but I had gotten the book straight from the author. All other sources are publicly available, whether it be websites, magazines, articles, Government contracts, the museum who own her itself, representatives from the museum who have spoken in articles, photographs, heritage organisations, research society bulletins, etc. However, every single thing added since the very first draft is gone, even the information which, in my opinion, cannot be contested as being poorly sourced. I simply do not understand where this claim comes from. The current state of the article is now subpar, as the original draft contains information I now understand with evidence to be entirely wrong and so much is missing. If you can't stomach the fact I have used an unpublished book, fine. But at least everything else needs to be restored, because all of that you can read yourself if you cared enough. Before you destroy all of my work, look at what is and isn't poorly sourced in your opinion first. You owe me, this ship, and most importantly everyone who was ever involved in the construction, ownership, and operation of this ship at least that.

Additionally, I have been blocked from editing Wikipedia articles for these reasons, and I do not think that is fair. Please reconsider for the reasons above. Stardust5980 (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]