Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:41, 21 May 2009

Hi! Welcome to the English Misplaced Pages! Fun and Interesting Articles Userpage guidelines Load a random article! Userbox directory Join a WikiProject Are you a Wikipediholic? The top editors The motto of the day Some really bad ideas..... The Department of Fun! Wikisongs!! Some new article ideas Some very odd articles..... List of the newest users Barnstars! List of user rewards List of pages most vandalized Very frequently asked questions Jimmy Wales, owner of Misplaced Pages The reward board (earn $$$) Get articles to edit from SuggestBot Find out how many edits you have! Hello, Natty4bumpo, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for registering an account. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:   Introduction  5    The five pillars of Misplaced Pages: A summery of Misplaced Pages's official policies and guidelines   How to edit a page   Help   Tips   How to write a great article   Manual of Style   Be Bold   Assume Good faith   Keep cool   Share your knowledge   Get adopted: a program designed to help new and inexperienced users   Neutral point of view And here are several pages on what to avoid: How to avoid Copyright infringement How not to spam Make sure not to get blocked, which should be no problem after reading this The Three-Revert-Rule and how to avoid breaking it I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Also, I think that you might be interested in the adopt-a-user project, where advanced editors can guide you in your editing; so check it out if you want. Again, welcome! NuclearWarfare (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

An award

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		I don't think I have ever seen anything like Timeline of Cherokee removal on Misplaced Pages. What detail, and oh the printed references! « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:"We_Are_Not_Yet_Conquered!".jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:"We_Are_Not_Yet_Conquered!".jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi - Can you tell me if the OTRS email from the copyright holder for Image:"We Are Not Yet Conquered!".jpg has been sent to photosubmission@wikimedia.org releasing this into the public domain as yet - I havn't closed the deletion discussion pending the permission email but eventually the clock may run out - Peripitus (Talk) 12:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Marquess / Marquis

I noticed you have moved a large number of articles from page titles with the spelling Marquess to Marquis. I feel such a large number of page moves should not have been carried out without discussion, and that a proposal should have been listed at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. I have brought the issue up at the WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage and would welcome your comments there. JRawle (Talk) 10:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Double redirects

Some of the moves you made also created double redirects. Whenever you move pages, you must check that you haven't left any double redirects. Perhaps this is another illustration of why you shouldn't move a large number of pages single-handedly with no prior discussion. JRawle (Talk) 12:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please cool it

Regarding your series of personal remarks at Talk:Chickamauga wars:

You wrote: If you knew anything at all about who's who in the study of Cherokee history and Indians of the Southeast, you'd know who Ray is. First of all, I knew who Raymond Evans was when I mentioned him, although I have not met him. I wrote "presumably" because there is more than one scholar on earth named Raymond Evans, and I wanted to let other readers know whom I believed we were discussing. I was also admitting the possibility that you were referring to some other Raymond Evans.

Please note, however, that my familiarity with Evans, or lack of it, is beside the point. Misplaced Pages is not a peer-reviewed journal, and no special qualifications are required. There is a set of principles and policies that editors are asked to follow. (For example, civility is a requirement here. Editors are also required to assume good faith.)

You wrote: As for your not knowing who's who on Southeast Indian affairs, that's rather obvious, Besides being uncivil, this remark is way off target. I'm not going to dignify it by competing with you at name dropping or proclaiming my credentials. The ethic of Misplaced Pages is that we should discuss our work as equals even if one of us is a tenured professor of Indian Studies and the other is a pimply British 16-year-old who likes movies about "Red Indians." The principle is that both can make useful contributions to the article.

You wrote: Your assertion implies that I'm lying or at least exaggerating; I contend that you should do some actual legwork and investigation before making accusations (explicit or implicit) and/or attempts to force a change. I implied no such thing; I assume that you do indeed know Raymond Evans personally. I have also sought consensus on the renaming of the article. Your accusation that I am trying to "force a change" is false. I have assumed good faith on your part, and ask that you do the same for me.

Two more important points:

1. No one owns a Misplaced Pages article. As the note on every editing page states, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." This is often frustrating, and it opens the door to lots of childish vandalism, as well as efforts to enshrine fake history like the "Chickamauga tribe" legend. But it works well in the long run. Anyway it's not going to change any time soon.
2. Misplaced Pages is not a forum for original research or a new, improved synthesis of knowledge. If that is what you are working on here, then you are bound to become discouraged. It is not appropriate — in fact, it's not allowed — to use the results of one's own interviews with scholars or archival research when writing a Misplaced Pages article. Citing one's own published work is also frowned upon.

I have found WP:SR to be a useful refresher in the Misplaced Pages method.

Finally: If you have a sense of ownership of this article, and don't want to see it altered, I would encourage you to instead either publish your work online in a way that gives you control over the content, or (better yet) submit it to a history journal. The first option is easier, but the second has several advantages that I probably don’t need to spell out. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 16:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The only sense of ownership I have about the article is to prevent it from being vandalized, which you yourself did by undoing what that member of the "Chikimaka" inserted (I missed that because I was in the middle of exams that week). The only alterations I've ever made to additions is corrections of fact or cleaning up grammar.

"Chickamauga wars" has the virtual of being simple and accurate, and there's no reason to change a title of an article which has existed under the current name for over two years unless it is complex and/or inaccurate. "Chickamauga wars" is not a proper noun, so it's not a "neologism". The title you suggest ("Chickamauga frontier conflicts...") implies, or at least leaves open the interpretation, that there actually was a Chickamauga tribe for there to be a frontier of. THAT would be a neologism.

All the information, with the exception of Ray's opinion about the origins of the word "Chickamauga", come directly from the sources I've cited, so none of it is "original research". However, regardless of what Misplaced Pages recommends, plenty of its articles are filled with or based solely on original research and/or new interpretations, and many of its articles amount to "neologisms", some of which originate for lack of any other way to reference them (such as the "First Battle of Chattanooga" and the "Second Battle of Chattanooga", which I pointed out to Ray when discussing your concerns with him; he agreed that writer had little other choice than to so name them). Besides, common interpretations are not necessarily accurate. If Misplaced Pages is going to be more than the pop culture vehicle its detractors accuse it of being, it's going to have to make that distinction.

Treaty of New Echota

I would be glad to see this article provide a more balanced and reliably sourced explanation of how this treaty came about. However, some of the additions you made are misleading by omission, for example claiming that the treaty delegation had the support of a "council of several hundred." It was a council of several hundred Ridge band Cherokee, not a council drawn from the whole nation. It's not surprising that they ratified Baudinot's actions.

It seems quite clear from any angle that the Cherokee national government did not accept the treaty, and that the US government exploited the Ridge band signatures rather cynically. WillOakland (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The National Council agreed in October 1835, a unified council of both divisions, to send one delegation to Washington (led by Ross, John Ridge, and Elias Boudinot) and another to meet with Schermerhorn at New Echota. At the time there were no validly elected officials or representatives; there was no election in 1832, so the charge of the treaty signers being unelected means nothing since the Ross delegation in Washington was not elected either. In truth, if there had been an election in 1832, John Ridge would likely have won, being the best orator in the Nation and able to speak Cherokee (unlike Ross). With regards to the make-up of the delegation at New Echota, there were some Ross party members present--who voted in favor of the treaty--and they had the imprimatur of the Council; it was neither one-sided nor a rogue outfit that you wish it was.

Some would argue, and have, that since the outcome of Ross' machinations were a foregone conclusion that it was he who cynically manipulated the Cherokee (for the profit of himself and his brother Lewis).

By "better balanced" I take it you mean slanted pro-Ross? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't care whether Ross spoke Cherokee. I don't care whether John Ridge "might" have won an election for chief. I am not the slighest bit interested in re-fighting the political battles of 170 years ago. I only want to see those battles described as they were, without moral judgement or editorializing against either side.

If you have sources showing that there were National Council representatives at New Echota, could you please provide them?

Personally, I believe that John Ross negotiated in bad faith, and Jackson responded by submitting a treaty in bad faith. If you're going to accuse anyone who contradicts you in the slightest or requests sources of being a Ross partisan, that's not really a basis for improving the article. WillOakland (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You indicated that it was your position that the convention in New Echota was "only" a Ridge party event and unauthorized; that wasn't the case. Not only were they not the only ones who showed up (although the number of Ross partisans present was very small; men who were from neither also attended), their meeting with Schermerhorn was authorized by the National Council. The position that it was only "Ridge band Cherokee" as if it were a completely wildcat, secret, and underhanded endeavor is a Ross partisan position, not actual historical fact. Truthfully, the Treaty party all but begged more of the Ross party to attend and delayed opening the session several days in hopes of getting a maximum number of delegates. And they couldn't "ratify Boudinot's actions", as you put that "it is not surprising" they did, because he was in Washington with Ross at the time and had nothing to do with the negotiations several hundred miles to the south. Given the slant inherent in your language, I hope you can see why I made that assumption that you are a Ross partisan. It seems I was incorrect and you just haven't investigated thoroughly enough. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was incorrect; Boudinot was initially assigned to go to Washington along with John Ridge, but he bowed out and his brother Stand Watie took his place. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your change of "Ross party" to "Cherokee government", since Major Ridge, John Ridge, and Elias Boudinot (along with Andrew Ross and other pro-treaty men) were all officers of the government, calling those objections those of the Cherokee government is biased. Chuck Hamilton (talk)

I don't know how to make it any clearer: cite sources. If you're really the hot-shot historian you seem to think you are, then it shouldn't be hard. WillOakland (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Much of what I've added, but not all, has come from Wilkins and Mooney, both of which I cited under References. Good editing on your part, by the way. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of House of Moytoy

An article that you have been involved in editing, House of Moytoy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/House of Moytoy. Thank you. -Binary TSO

Hey...

Hey, just wanted to drop you a line here to make sure you're not thinking I'm being a jerk or something over at Moytoy I. That certainly isn't my intention. I just want to see Misplaced Pages expanding constructively, not having pages blanked without discussion. I would prefer that the last version I put up be left until the discussion is worked out amicably, but I'm not going to fight around with reverts.

On an entirely different, and much more friendly topic, when were you at DLI and what language did you study? I was there from 2001-2002, and took the Russian Basic Course. Kind of crazy how small the world is sometimes. -- PEPSI2786 19:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The person Misplaced Pages currently lists as "Moytoy I" never existed. The first person known to the English by that corruption of his Cherokee name was Moytoy of Tellico, referred to here as "Moytoy II". The second actual person to be known as "Moytoy" to the English was Moytoy of Citico. As for discussion on the erasure information in the article, a notice calling for that has been up for over a year, and the notice makes clear that if nothing is done (no supportive, reliable, verifiable sources), then it may be edited or deleted at will, which, since no such person as Moytoy I ever existed, it should be.

Pause to consider for a minute the title of the article: "Moytoy I", as if the (nonexistent) individual to whom the article purports to refer is a European monarch. And that is the explicit implication, since that myth is part of the "House of Moytoy" myth dreamed up by pop historians and amateur geneaologists.

Wow, Russian at DLI? That was a tough one as I recall from hearing the people in that course talk about it. I was there April 1986 thru March 1987 for Vietnamese Basic. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Natty,

It's probably best to bring your concerns to the talk page of the article, rather than blanking the article out. If the person this article describes never existed (as you say above), a better solution would be to bring the article to articles for deletion. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 00:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There has been a warning up about lack of sources for over a year. "Moytoy I" never existed, certainly not under that title, nor did such a person exist at all. I redeleted, but I'll put a couple of lines about who he purportedly is. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't re-delete, as there's already been some objection to just that on the article's talk page. Instead, either discuss a solution with other editors on the talk page, or take the discussion to articles for deletion, which will permanently remove the article from Misplaced Pages (a better solution for an article which is entirely false). Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 00:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Moytoy I" first never existed, neither did the "House of Moytoy" which he supposedly founded. There is no solution; the whole "article" is fiction. The "no sources" notice had been up for over a year; who on Misplaced Pages polices things like that? Not that any credible, verifiable sources could be provided about the life of someone who didn't exist.

Thanks for the directions to the articles for deletion discussion page. I would have utilized that route had I been aware of how to do so. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I added it, so why do I see nothing but red? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you put a block on the page, I can't complete the nomination process. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you put the tag up for me. Thank you. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Moytoy I. Here's where you'd throw in the evidence about there not being a Moytoy I, etc. Sorry for all the bureaucracy. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As for providing evidence of nonexistence, proving a negative is logically impossible. The sources provided on the webpage are not credible. One of them is connected to a wannabe group (one of the hundreds around the country claiming to be Cherokee) whom the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians are in the process of taking to court for damages together. The reference to Burke's has no place at all. Fictional sources are not the same as credible, veifiable sources. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Prince of Chota

Thank you for your initiative in ridding Misplaced Pages of "House of Moytoy" pseudohistory. Once the AfDs are done, I will ask for deletion of the category as well.

This source appears to shed some light on the mysterious "Prince of Chota." As I mentioned (and as recorded by Ludovick Grant), each town had a head beloved man / head chief / uku / ouka / "king." According to this source, there was also an office of "second chief" in each town, and during the Chota period the second chief of Chota was also de facto second chief of the nation. WillOakland (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well what do you know... After a week of bouncing around from one source to another, I finally found what is very likely the source of the whole Moytoy business. It's a 1971 book ironically titled Tell Them They Lie by "Traveller Bird." Traveller claimed to be a direct descendant of Sequoyah, and to have worked with 16 other descendants from an archive that only they had access to. After publishing one more book the next year, Traveller and the other "descendants" were never heard from again, despite some curiosity from historians.

The entire text of the book is available here (on a Cherokee pretender group's web site, naturally). It's fabulously imaginative, claiming that the Cherokee writing system existed as early as 1483, that Moytoy of Tellico and Attakullakulla were the same person, and culminating in a passion play that casts Sequoyah as Christ and Major Ridge as Caiaphas/Pilate. It's also a brilliant example of the furtive fallacy, with the telltale allegations of bribes and drunken agreements. To top it all off, Cherokee are depicted writing and speaking (in their own language!) in a stilted "smokum peace pipe" style.

... but to get back to the point, at the beginning of chapter 1 there is a discussion of the "Moytoy kings" and the Carpenter lineage. So that's apparently where it comes from. WillOakland (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info. The book and a link to their Yahoogroup are the only links that work, and the Yahoogroup has only had one message every couple of months. Down at the bottom of their Yahoo homepage it indicates their group is called "Southern Wolf Clan Teaching Council of the Indian Creek Band Chickamauga Creek Inc." A new one on me, but the are literally hundreds of disparate groups claiming to be Cherokee. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If people continue to roll back the Prince of Chota article, a somewhat less bureaucratic process is to request that the redirect be protected from editing at WP:RFP. 02:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Cherokee leaders

Excellent work on these stubs - just wanted to drop you a friendly reminder to use categories and stub templates when you're creating them.

Keep up the good work, and happy editing! --User:AlbertHerring 16:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Great work on the various articles, you've certainly been working hard. However, I have noticed that you don't use inline citation on your edits. It isn't entirely necessary, I suppose, but it makes for a better sourced article. If you don't have experience with inline citation on Misplaced Pages, check out WP:CITE#Inline Citations. -- PEPSI2786 00:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I haven't used inlines not to be contrary but because I'm old school about footnotes, that they should only be used if there's an actual quote, paraphrase, or info that could have come only from that one source. And I've never seen an encyclopedia that had them. However, I do see why they might be needed in other cases, particularly some of the more controversial subjects where everyone wants their two cents in, although it's not necessary to go as far as the editors of "Atheism", who had at one time 170+ inline citations, seven in the first sentence. I didn't know how to do inlines, though, so thank you. I'm sure if I keep up like I have been, I will need that info at some point. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Trail of Tears

BTW, I come in peace. Don't you think perhaps the "Cherokee removal" article, which was originally part of the Trail of Tears article, should be put back there? If not, then shouldn't each of those tribes have their own removal articles? Odestiny (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be like the Cherokee article; a general article dealing with removal for the Five Civilized Tribes as an overall common experience touching somewhat on each individual tribe's experiences, with individual article, like the one on "Cherokee removal" for each of the five, because their experiences were very different. Did you know, for example, that the after the Muscogee had decided removal was inevitable that they wanted John Ridge and David Vann to sit with their negotiation team in Washington, not because either of the two advocated removal at that time (both were adamantly opposed) but because they were perhaps the two most trusted statesmen among the Five Tribes specifically because they were so opposed to removal? They wanted them to sit in the negotiations as chiefs of the Mucogee (Creek) Nation. The feds refused, but they nevertheless sat in with the delegation as lawyers. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't know that, but appreciate the info. I really didn't expect you to go for this option, but I agree that it is probably the best idea. Even though we may disagree on the number of deaths, I hope the article would note some of the difficulties the Cherokee faced on the trip. I would offer to help, but realize you are able to do an incredible amount of editing in a short time whereas it can take me hours to create a paragraph. Rather than clash in the articles, I propose comparing notes here from time to time. For example, I have read that the Cherokee were given some diseased blankets from a sanitarium in Tennessee. Have you heard of this? Odestiny (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have heard the story about the blankets, and the same story about the Mohican, the Wampanoag, the Lakota, and every other tribe on the northern part of the continent, but only as a story, never a confirmed report. They may have gotten blankets from missionaries or toehr do-gooders who happened to be carriers without symptoms. Diseases wiped out a hell of a lot of people who had no immunity to them. Sociologists estimate that in 1492, their were about 145 million indigenous people in the Western Hemisphere; in 1650, there were 1.5 million. All due to disease. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I notice it is mentioned in the Illinois Joint House Resolution beginning in line 23. Odestiny (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Citico

Was the Citico site near Chattanooga a Cherokee town? If so, the article for the Citico in Monroe County will need to be further disambiguated. Bms4880 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, founded by former inhabitants of the town on the Little Tennessee River, which as emptied by the move of its entire population southwest. There is no archaeological site for the later town, largely because it has been destroyed by the presence of Chattanooga, and it was never a very important town for the Cherokee, overshadowed as it was by nearby Chickamauga, Tuskeegee, and Toqua. Since it was founded by the same population formerly of the same town in the Overhill Cherokee area, it is virtually the same town and does not need a separate article of disambigulation. A paragraph or sentence added to the article will suffice. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Atheism

Please propose changes to the Atheism article on the article talk page, and allow for discussion and to establish consensus before applying changes to the article, especially to the intro. By the way, in this edit you're changing the words in an actual quoted and cited quote. The actual words in the about.com article are "atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods." And that's how it was quoted and cited in the reference, until you changed it, inexplicably, to "atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of any gods" (my bold emphasis in both cases, to highlight the change you made). --Born2cycle (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• That first section, and the whole article, is way to crowded with citations. I've said that one the Talk page. I didn't mean to change that. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I've contacted a Misplaced Pages administrator about the plagiarism. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The argument that that is plagiarism has been addressed on the talk page. There is no consensus that agrees with your POV. To the contrary. Please discuss on the talk page. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Since I've contacted an administrator, it's her call, not either of ours. Plagiarism isn't a matter for debate, it's a potential legal problem. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've forwarded your message to Firsfron, since you seem to have posted that message to the wrong user. Hope he can clear things up for you. -- PEPSI2786 23:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Things may have straightened out. No one's changed it since I contacted you. They've changed what I replaced it with, but they haven't restored what was there before. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw that it was working itself out on the talk page. WP:COPYVIO is the official policy: "Contributors should take steps to remove any copyright violations that they find." Removal of the copyright violation, coupled with a note on the discussion page, is appropriate. Which is what you did. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Cherokee. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- IRP ☎ 02:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been on Misplaced Pages for over two years, have created several pages, some rather lengthy and currently have more than 150 articles on my watchlist. I blanked the page but replaced everything before I hit save. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an edit war between myself and an unregistered user who refuses to use the talk page to discuss his/her changes per Misplaced Pages policy in these matters. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to use the edit summary when removing text and if the unregistered user continues to refuse to use the talk page, report the user to WP:AIV. -- IRP ☎ 03:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC), modified 03:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Images

Looking over all the rules for uploading, creating, etc., of images, I feel like I need a lawyer just to understand it. It's almost as if Misplaced Pages is trying to discourage people from uploading images. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chuck,

I understand your feeling. Misplaced Pages is certainly in need of good, free, public domain images, so if you can provide them, I'd gladly assist you with the correct tagging process. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got this great image to go along with the "Chickamauga wars" article. It was there before but got deleted because I couldn't decipher the rules in time to be able to explain anything to the actual holder of the copyright what to do. He's past retirement age, and while he's still one of the sharpest people I know, computers are not his forte, and if I couldn't make sense of it, I know he couldn't. Misplaced Pages is not a very user-friendly site that way. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some of the image use restrictions are often mind-boggling. But Misplaced Pages had a big problem with copyright material getting uploaded, so now the rules are pretty strict. At any rate, if you'd like to upload an image, speak with your friend and ask him if he'd prefer to release his image into the public domain (meaning anyone could use his image for any purpose), or under the terms of the GFDL (which requires that he receive attribution for his work, and any subsequent changes to that work), or one of the other licenses. It'd probably be best if you also put his contact information on the image page as well, so that everything can be verified. If your friend would rather not release his work under some sort of license, it is Misplaced Pages's loss... but also the only way we can assure that everyone's copyright rights are protected. Does this help? Firsfron of Ronchester 19:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I talked to him and found out the image was never legally copyrighted and that the actual artist died three months ago. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The process of formally copyrighting a work isn't necessary; if the work was created in the U.S., the copyright is the life of the creator plus 70 years. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:We Are Not Yet Conquered!.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:We Are Not Yet Conquered!.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Misplaced Pages's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Show me something I can click on and I'll be glad to fix it. Don't just tell me to fix it and not tell me how. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Nevermind. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Please remember to use the edit summary whenever you work on a page. Your multiple edits to the Cherokee page, without a proper summary, make it a rather tedious task to go through and check your work (for mistakes and places where you removed some information that should have remained there.) And there is, from what I can see, an edit war going on. This makes your edit summary that much more important. Thanks in advance for your future consideration, Ono (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I was fighting with that same unregistered user all evening yesterday, and he/she refused to use the Talk page. The changes I made tonight, and made several times last night, I have already discussed on the "Cherokee" talk page. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My bad. I'll go back and put my reasons in the Talk page now. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Fiver Lower Towns.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Fiver Lower Towns.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Misplaced Pages can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Parsons' 1762 Portrait

So, I was looking around recently at Oconostota, Attakullakulla, Kanagatucko, Ostenaco, and Henry Timberlake, and I've found myself slightly confused as to the identity of the Cherokee pictured in Francis Parsons' 1762 portrait which is currently shown on the article for Oconostota. I was wondering if you had access to any sources which could help to clarify who this actually is. He was one of three Cherokee that traveled with Timberlake to England in 1762. Ostenaco was one. According to the appendix of this edition (Note 161) of Timberlake's Memoirs, the three Cherokee were Otacita Ostinaco Sky Augusta (Ostenaco), Wooe Pidgeon, and Conney Shota. The Cherokee in the portrait is Conney Shota, who is also mentioned in that appendix as Stalking Turkey. (The artist is also incorrectly mentioned in that appendix as Thomas Parson). A Smithsonian website I found mentions him as Cunne Shote (or Ku na gadoga, The Standing Turkey, Turkey Is Standing, Conocotocko). Any chance you know which Cherokee exactly these are? I'd love to see their articles (if they exist) filled out applicably and correctly as we have attempted to do on Ostenaco's article. If Conney Shota is not Oconostata, I'd like to see the incorrect portrait there removed. Thanks for the help. -- PEPSI2786 00:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Ray Evans, the portrait is of Ostenaco, painted by a guy named Reynolds. He did an article about the trip for the Journal of Cherokee Studies which mentioned the picture and ID'd Ostenaco as the subject. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The portrait on Ostenaco is of Ostenaco by Reynolds. Reynolds is a famous painter and I am pretty sure that one is correct and the one your friend Ray is talking about... But there was a portrait painted by Francis Parsons of another of the Cherokee on that trip (it's currently on Oconostota, and I'm not certain who it is. The portrait itself is labeled as Cunney Shota (or some derivative of that spelling) and 1762. Was just curious if you knew. If not, no big deal, I suppose. -- PEPSI2786 23:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It can't be Oconostota; he wasn't on that trip. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. If that portrait isn't Oconostota (and I would have thought it would be mentioned in Timberlake's Memoirs if Oconostota was there), we should probably remove it from the Oconostota article. Oh, and that being said, that portrait is all of the internet labeled as Oconostota... but based on it being painted in 1762 in England, I don't see how it could be, unless Oconostota was on the trip. -- PEPSI2786 23:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, have you taken a look at "Chickamauga wars" lately? I've got 76 in-line citations. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just looking through it last night actually. It's looking good... but it's huge. Just massive. So, yeah, I haven't read through the whole thing, and can't really give much feedback at this point. But it's nice to see more inline citations! With topics that are even slightly controversial it's nice to point directly to where your facts are coming from so they can't be denied. -- PEPSI2786 04:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That, and the fact that some of the info I could find in one source, or several offered slightly different details. Some of the bigger, more well-known facts don't really need citation, of if they did I'd feel obligated to cite every source. I've downloaded a PDF of the aritcle: 42 pages. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it possible that Standing Turkey, who you just created an article for is the man in the portrait? -- PEPSI2786 05:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you read further down in that link to the Smithsonian, that's exactly who they say it is. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I read the whole thing... I just didn't know that he existed until you made that article tonight. I'm interested in the subject, but I'm by no means knowledgeable about 18th century Cherokee. I helped make the Henry Timberlake article with BMS after reading his Overhill Cherokee article, and have been interested ever since. Unfortunately, I don't have access to any material to look anything up, aside from what I can find online. And online sources are notoriously unreliable. Google Books is about all I've got to work with. Any way, I'll look into it more tomorrow, I'm dead tired. Take care. -- PEPSI2786 05:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How do I undo a move and return an article back to it's original page? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not really sure. -- PEPSI2786 01:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Chickamauga wars

Something's wrong with the page; it doesn't load all the way. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you get it to load for you, Chuck? If not, it may be because the page is too large. The article is 123k. Misplaced Pages:Article size recommends that page length not exceed 100k, because readers on dial-up will not be able to see the page. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was OK a couple of minutes later, but it had loaded only partway three or four times, which I thought was strange.

Regarding James Vann

Hi, Natty4bumpo; I'm writing with regards to a request for editor assistance about the article on James Vann. It appears you reverted an anonymous editor's edits to that page, and he/she is somewhat confused about those reverts. I've advised that user to take things to the talk page, and I'd appreciate it if you'd take the time to go over there as well. I will say, however, this would probably have been easier for all involved if you'd used an edit summary somewhere in the series of reverts you made. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 21:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey again; I notice that you haven't attempted to start a discussion about this at Talk:James Vann, yet have persisted in reverting the anonymous editor's contributions. Furthermore, in referring to said edits as vandalism, you're making a blatant assumption of bad faith, which has had a clear effect of biting said user. Please stop and try to discuss with the editor. Thank you. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The additions are unsourced and in large part false. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Chuck - I've been following this too and would second Medaliv's request. If you're reverting because the additions are unsourced and false, then please say so on the article's Talk page. That might induce the other editor to supply the sources which support his edits and in any case would let other editors know what your thinking is. With matters as they stand right now, other editors are left in the dark and have little to go on in response to, e.g., a Request for Editor Assistance. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, unless you have substantial evidence (which frankly I haven't seen) that the other editor's contributions are intended to deliberately undermine the integrity of Misplaced Pages, please do not refer to good faith contributions as vandalism (per WP:VAND). Doing so can appear to outsiders as though you're trying to exert ownership over that article. I'm not suggesting this is your intention, but that you should take care to avoid such appearances per WP:BITE at the least. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you're reading this page! Since you've got the time to deal with this issue, would you please comply with the above requests to discuss your reversions at Talk:James Vann? —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP editor has now written on the Talk page describing certain journals by Moravian missionaries that apparently add to what is known about James Vann - I've encouraged him to figure out whether the journals are suitably reliable and verifiable, etc., and it might be helpful if you weighed in with what you know about the matter, if anything. JohnInDC (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Hey Chuck, thanks for the discussion at AfD. It is apparent that we are talking past each other, and not likely to come to agreement. I have unwatched the pages, so as not to continue our back and forth there. If you wish to discuss this further, you may do so on my talk page. If not, all the best and happy editing. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 18:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tags

Please do not re-add a speedy deletion tag after it has been removed. Doing so again will be taken as disruptive. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

NCNOLT AfD

Hi, Natty4bumpo. I just wanted to drop you a note and remind you that as someone else pointed out on the AfD, you're coming very close to breaching the no personal attacks rule, and you've left civility in the dust. Disagreeing with you does not constitute belonging to the group you're trying to get deleted. The criteria for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is notability, not federal recognition. An excess of self-published sources is not a reason for deletion: it's a reason for cleanup and rewriting.

The reason I dropped in is that your conduct there was brought up on the Administrator's Noticeboard. Please follow WP policies more closely so that we don't have to take action to protect the encyclopedia. Thank you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Fine. They may or may not belong to that specific group, but I have been dealing with pseudo-Indian, particularly pseudo-Cherokee, groups for nearly two decades and I recognize the types of arguments the members of those organizations make, and the arguments made on that page fit that parameter. It's extremely naive to think that none of the respondents are members of NCNOTL, though.

Funny, but no one made similar defense of the "Chikamaka", whose article was speedily deleted (by someone else's suggestion; I already had suggested deletion the long way).

As for keeping the article, when Misplaced Pages finds itself in court defending against lawsuits by the Cherokee Nation (the actual federally-recognized LEGITIMATE Cherokee Nation) and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, you can't say I didn't tell you that could happen. That's not a threat, it's just that the two afore-mentioned entities are in the process of bringing such a suit in federal court, with the NCNOTL being one of the entities they are targetting; any organization which supports the fraudulent claims of the NCNOTL (and any of the other 204 such organizations listed on the CNO's website) could potentially find itself in the position of co-respondent. Since I'm not, and have never claimed to be Cherokee, that can't be considered a threat. It's just that for the last year Misplaced Pages has been trying to shore up its credibility and such articles as this one hamper that. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

1. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?GAID=8&SessionID=50&GA=94&DocTypeID=HJR&DocNum=142&LegID=26217&SpecSess=&Session=