User talk:Salkire

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:RMS2007.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:RomneyMiddleSchool.jpg. The copy called Image:RomneyMiddleSchool.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and remember exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 18:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Romney Middle School
I have added a "" template to the article Romney Middle School, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. DGG 20:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The notice left above is a form, entered automatically when a deletion is proposed; it is a little on the cold side, but don't blame me for it. As for my comments, I thank you for your criticism, for it is not easy to tell how one comes across, as you'll know as a teacher.  I try to use the tone that seems to work here.  I have no particular intellectual powers, but what i do have is decades of experience in helping people do research, & one thing librarians are good at is finding and evaluating sources.

(Also, most discussions at AfD are repeats of what was said before for similar articles, and I guess those of us there who do it regularly tend to be impatient of those who don't. I'll keep an eye on that. ) Like most regulars at a computer-based anything, it's easy to be supercilious with newbies. All I can say as a defense is that I unlike perhaps some others, at least try not to be. .
 * The article is much improved, & it is better than most middle school articles, and you properly removed the tag. The basic screen for schools at WP is that high schools are likely to be notable, elementary schools rarely, and middle schools sometimes. It depends on how much there is to say, and whether it can be documented. You have found a good deal to say, and done a truly exceptional job of documentation. WP has conventions for documentation; you do not have to follow them, but it makes the article look stronger & more expert if you do. Copy them into the references section of the WP article instead of just making a link. Enter them as a bulleted list. The titles of books should be enclosed in two single quotation marks so they come out in italics,; the titles of periodicals should go in three single quotation marks, so they come out in 'bold (The html codes work, but don't use them). If you're using the monobook skin with Java enabled, buttons for formatting should show up on top of the edit box.

But only include the ones actually bearing on the account, not the general background. List the interviews separately or omit them--they are not considered sources for WP purposes. WP is not scholarly. In the real world, were you going to write an account of the school based on original research, the interviews and the newspaper would be considered primary sources, the data from which history is made. Your account, as with the published books are secondary sources, based on the primary sources. In WP, the writing has to be based on secondary sources exclusively--there's a rule against doing original research, WP:OR. The reason for this is that original research has to be certified by someone--a referee for the publisher, a peer-reviewer for an academic journal; but we can not do this in WP, because anyone can contribute, and no one can vouch for the accuracy of what someone sees. (You may have heard of Citizendium, also a wiki, but where the articles are reviewed by experts in the subject).
 * As for the links in the article, there are two preferred ways, embedded HTML links, and footnotes. See WP-CITE. I've turned your first few links into embedded online links, as  examples.  DGG 21:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(I apologize if I sound too much like someone addressing a true beginner, not an expert in a related field, but I've given these instructions many times before.) Best wishes--and quite seriously, you should think about publishing what you've been doing. There are a few semi-professional local historians writing articles here, and you're doing a much more careful job than they.