User talk:Smithgiant

Hi
Hey i noticed that you were putting 4 "~" in your edit summary, this is a normal mistake. You will only need to do that when signing a post within a talk page, you do not need to put it in the edit summary section. Thank you, Tiptoety 04:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hmmm, I may have, but don't remember doing it...but I may have mistaken where I was, etc.

License tagging for Image:Dewey-woodruff-generations.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Dewey-woodruff-generations.png. 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:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

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 Media copyright questions. 05:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

JJ Dewey article
I responded to your post on the JJ Dewey article. One of the coolest policies on wikipedia is Please do not bite the newcomers. And, welcome to wikipedia. Fredsmith2 17:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the wikipedia purists would say that until people get a lot of third-party stuff published, then it shouldn't be on wikipedia. The guidelines for notability are located in: Notability.  What I would do if I were you is to gather together as much stuff as possible.  There is probably some stuff out there.  Also, you can publish third party information that you can quote on here, like if you were to write an article on something like Associated Content.  That's frowned on a little, because it's not ultra-objective if you're both coming up with the third-party content and quoting it, but it would still be a viable third-party, quotable piece.


 * And, I feel your pain about people complaining and tagging, etc. That's why on my user page I say, "Remember to add content."  Basically means to contribute, rather than just complain.Fredsmith2 23:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like someone flagged the page you were working on for deletion. The biggest problem with the page is how many times it references the author.  It probably wouldn't have ever been flagged if it only had one or two references to stuff made directly by the author.  You can do a couple of things.
 * Go to the deletion page, Articles for deletion/J. J. Dewey, and vote to Keep the article.
 * Remove all but two of the references directly from Dewey
 * If you deleted references, restore some of them, even if they are dead links. They were at one time links that went to somewhere, and these are harder for wikipedian purists to prove are against some obscure wikipedia policy.
 * Look for magazine articles or books on Dewey or that reference Dewey and cite them as sources. Go to a library and look up information.  An obscure magazine article takes a lot more effort to criticize than a web page.  The criticizer must do more effort than just click on the link.
 * Look for web articles out there. If he really is notable, then there should be something on the web about him that's not by him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredsmith2 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You asked about AFD and where to discuss. Indeed you will find that most editors are courteous and trying to be helpful - but we can't let being nice go against guidelines or Wikipedia would not be what it is and can be.  Answers: 1)AFD is an ok place to talk deletion policy - but is better here on a user pages - but pixels are pixels. All is good. 2)The closing admin decides if it is deleted. Deletion decisions can be reviewed.  I'll post link.  But that is same as the AFD discussion.  Those who choose to participate, do.  BTW if you do now think, on balance, that this page does not meet notablity criteria, it would help workings to say so. Please join us mad editors and make Wikipedia great.Obina 20:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * it is here WP:DRVObina 20:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about disruptive editing in progress
Your editing has been mentioned at a discussion in progress. Please feel free to comment here. - Jehochman Talk 03:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)