User talk:Folk smith

Welcome!

Hello, Folk smith, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ealdgyth | Talk 16:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Agrirama-JJw1101.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Agrirama-JJw1101.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pig jig

You seem to have no understanding whatsoever about how Wikipedia works. One would have hoped that you would have researched better before using it in class.

The article is now up for a formal deletion discussion. That takes 5 days, so you have time to fix it.
Wikipedia is all about co-operative editing. The creator does NOT own the page, and there isn't a cat in hells chance of editing being restricted to the creator only
The references were removed because they were not correctly cited, not reliable sources, or a combination of these reasons. That is how Wikipedia works! If somebody puts content up that others believe to be incorrect or non-compliant, it gets removed.

Mayalld (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the Big Pig Jig is an important and recognized part of the culture of South Georgia. It has even been featured on Food Network's "All American Festivals" show (http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/show_fe/episode/0,1976,FOOD_9961_22722,00.html).

In which case, they should have no difficulty in establishing its notability, which I suggest they do. Mayalld (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Reining Horse Association article

Hey! I've removed the link to TIm McQuay's site from the NRHA article because it's a commercial site and violates the Wikipedia External link policy found here: WP:EL. It can't be used as a reference for an article about the NRHA, which, as I pointed out on the article's talk page is about the organization, not the sport of reining itself. Reining covers the sport. Even then, Tim McQuay's site would be not a good reference for the reining article because it's doesn't fit the Wikipedia source policy well. I put up a welcome message that has links to various importance Wikipedia policies here at the top of your page for easy reference! Ealdgyth | Talk 16:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2007

With regard to your comments on User talk:Mayalld: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Rgoodermote 17:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Removed[reply]

Some notes on Big Pig Jig

Hi there,

It appears that there may have been some confusion in the initial writing of the various Big Pig Jig articles, so I wanted to spend a few minutes to explain some of Wikipedia's policies, which may perhaps give you some insight into why the article was initially deleted. One of the core policies here is verifiability, which requires that the information in articles be based on reliable secondary sources (primary sources, such as the website of an event's organizer, are allowed for noncontroversial information, but only after the subject's notability has been established in reliable sources). The main reason for this, as I see it, is that maintaining verifiability allows any later unaffiliated person to recreate the research done in creating the article; otherwise, information can be presented as fact with no way for anyone else to verify its truth. The personal interviews you mentioned are an example of unacceptable sources; because they haven't been published in any edited or peer-reviewed venue, it would be impossible for any later editor to verify that their contents are accurate and valid. (For similar reasons, we don't generally allow blogs, message boards, etc. to be used as sources either).

I hope this information has been helpful - if you have any more questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. It appears that this is an event that deserves mention in Wikipedia, so we should be able to present an article on it which conforms to the site's core policies. JavaTenor (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Smith

I would like to take a few moments to apologize to you. Not just for initially thinking that the Big Pig Jig article wasn't notable, but for the way your first days here have gone. While I did not nominate the article to be speedily deleted, or put it up for AfD debate, I've got no problem saying when I'm wrong, and I was wrong in this case when I initially thought it was not a notable event. So, I realized it, and I decided to set out to verify and source as much of the information as I could, to keep the article from deletion. While the reliable sources should be given by the author on the initial posting of any article, anyone who has been here for a while who watches new pages, knows this is rarely the case, lol. The truth is, a great majority of the new pages that are put up every minute of the day, are simply test pages, or jokes, or pure advertisements, or non-noteworthy people, companies, etc. It is possibly because editors see so many of these types of pages, that the Pig Jig page went up for deletion so quickly, because it was not sourced initially as it needed to be. Again, I apologize for that. I cannot change how Wikipedia works, of course, nor would I want to, because overall, the system in place works very well, but I do recognize when brand new editors get caught in the system, just because they were unaware of the policies and guidelines, and rather than enjoying a relaxed, "new editor" phase, they are thrown into the deep end, with people quoting policies and guidelines at them, and they are forced to read a lot more than they perhaps should have, as a new editor, just to keep up. This unfortunately, is what happened to you. I realize that it is frustrating, but I'd also like to encourage you to not react negatively, I noticed the note you left on Mayalld's talk page, and I hope you understand why that was not the best choice of action, and I would encourage you to simply disengage in the future, if you are unable to interact with an editor productively. The two of you very clearly got off on the wrong foot, so I would suggest (to both of you, actually) that you simply disengage. Now, I hope that once this AfD discussion is through, you and your students can move on, learn from this, and continue to work on Wikipedia productively, and that you will continue to teach your students through Wikipedia, as I honestly do think of Wikipedia as a valuable resource for our future. Again, my most sincere apologies for my initial doubt as to the importance of the Big Pig Jig festival, and I do hope you'll forgive me. I hope you and your students have a very wonderful Thanksgiving holiday. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 06:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that the incident did not upset or deter your students, and I appreciate the difficulties, truly I do. I actually took many months before even doing any substantial edits, to learn the guidelines and policies, and even now, I still learn a little something nearly every day! I agree that you and the other editor didn't get off the the best foot, and I hope that you can put it behind you, and not judge all editors by this experience. I truly think that this project can be valuable in teaching, not just related to reading articles, but in learning policies and infrastructure of projects like this. If you need any help with anything, please do feel free to ask me, I'm more than happy to help! Ariel♥Gold 16:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:Mayalld, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mayalld (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging pages

Dear Mr. Smith, please stop tagging Wikipedia pages with {{notability}} tags. You are tagging pages that are not articles, and do not have the same criteria that articles have. I really encourage you to review the policies, because Wikipedia is more than just articles, there are projects, and Wikipedia pages (which are not articles) and essays, and a whole variety of other areas, that do not have the same standards as encyclopedia articles. I'm having to undo all your edits, and I really encourage you to stop, read a bit, and learn before you take actions such as this. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 13:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheboygan High School

Keep an eye on the contribs of the username and/or IP address. If they continue to vandalize, give them the standard warnings, then report them to WP:AIV. Useight (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cornelius Quartet

You didn't finish the AfD properly for The Cornelius Quartet, I fixed it for you. you can state your reasons for deletion there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Founding Fathers

Why did you place the {{nonsensepage}} tag on this article's talk page? You should have placed it on the talk page of the user who created the page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is... the {{nonsensepage}} is for USER TALK PAGES only. You should have placed it on the talk page of whoever created the page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{nonsensepage}} is in Category:User warning templates, so it DOES belong on user talk pages. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation)

I've added an opinion of "rename" in the discussion which appears not to have been considered in the debate. I encourage you to review my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) and determine if you need to reconsider your !vote. Regards. -- Whpq 18:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review

Hi, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I notice that you've recently made some listings on deletion review. Just to let you know that Deletion Review is for pages that have already been deleted and you think they should not have been, not a place to list pages that should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]