User talk:Natty4bumpo

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 Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 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 Wikipedia, check out WP:CITE. -- PEPSI2786 talk 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)

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 talk 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 talk 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 talk 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 talk 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 talk 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 talk 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 talk 01:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/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. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/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 Wikipedia, 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. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/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? &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * I saw your note on the restoration of the material making an allegation of fraud. Articles are routinely edited during an Article for Deletion discussion, so I have reverted your edit. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I already said so on your own Talk page, but thanks for the correction. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, thanks for the note. I should say that in fact, any editor may remove a speedy deletion note (except the article creator), but in practice it is generally administrators who actually do, since they are most likely to be reviewing speedy deletions.  Thanks again and let me know if you have any questions or concerns.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 hours for reverting more than 3 times in 24 hours, even after being warned. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a note here. the NCNOLT, according to National Conference of State Legislatures's Federal and State Recognized Tribes listing, is considered State-recognized in MO, with strong presence in AR but without recognition, and unrecognized branches in KS and OK. Consequently, the State recognized tribes and Unrecognized tribes listings reflect that. As NCSL is considered a reliable source, the two listings consequently reflects that... this doesn't mean you're right or wrong about this... it just means Wikipedia is reflecting what is verifyable. We appreciate any efforts to make all articles and listings be neutral and informative. As for the NCNOLT AfD issue, the current article is a liability to Wikipedia, but if edited to a strongly documented NPOV article, it should be OK, including the appropriate tags indicating that the article is in dispute. CJLippert (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC) CJLippert (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Fraudulent tribes
Where? Can you put a link that shows any information about the CNO lawsuit, or their listing of fraudulent tribes? I've looked all over the CNO site and can't find either. (Although I know David Cornsilk keeps posting them, but he also thinks even the CNO is a fraudulent government). I only know of a non-binding resolution that was passed at a joint meeting between the Eastern and CNO, but nothing about any real action being taken. I think I've asked you this before. Odestiny (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Where would you like me to post them? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll put them here for the time being:

http://www.powwows.com/gathering/native-issues/42092-list-fraudulent-cherokee-chickamuagas.html http://taskforce.cherokee.org/ (CNO's page for fraudulent tribes) List of unrecognized tribes Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

State recognition of Indian tribes
I am undoing your edits re state recognition of tribes for two reasons. First, whether or not they are recognized under federal law is irrelevant to their recognition by particular states. Make note of the insignificance of this recognition - but don't erase it. Second, you assert that state recognition can take place only by act of the legislature. I don't know anything about the subject area, so that may certainly be true; but it still needs to be sourced. Indeed for those of us who don't know anything about the area, it *needs* to be sourced. And - state by state, please. One state might require it by legislative act; another by gubernatorial proclamation. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (BTW - go back and check State recognized tribes - you just undid an edit of mine in which I had restored one of yours. The "mistake" was my own.  Sorry for the confusion!)  JohnInDC (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. A mere proclamation by a governor is meaningless, of no more standing than a mayor giving the key to the city.  Recognition can only be by statute, voted upon by a state legislature.  Even then, "recognition" is only honorary; under U.S. law, only the federal government can "recognize" Indian tribes as legitimate, and states trying to give to entities it "recognizes" any sort of benefits from that would be in serious trouble.  State recognition is rather pointless, therefore, but is still a widespread phenomena. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is where I begin to get confused. You say that state recognition is always meaningless, that it's just ceremonial, but that this ceremonial act is only a valid act when it's undertaken by the legislature but not by the governor.  Why, what is the basis for this assertion?  Next - I appreciate that a State can't recognize any Indian tribes for federal purposes, but are states constitutionally foreclosed from recognizing tribes for their own purposes (whatever they may be)?  I would appreciate the enlightenment.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A little bit of research suggests that the meaning of state recognition is at least the subject of some discussion - see here for just one example. It might just be ceremonial but a lot of states seem to go to a lot of trouble to formalize the requirements for this "ceremonial" finding, e.g., Virginia; so I guess I have trouble with the claim, without more, that state recognition is a nullity.  Also.  The State of Virginia - by legislation - has established a means for recognizing a tribe that entails another act of the legislature, plus the governor's concurrence.  What would stop a state from letting the governor do it alone, once the various criteria have been established?  Do you know for a fact that that is not the case in any state?  JohnInDC (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tribal recognition, even at the federal level, is a legislative act. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We're talking about States, and what you say would appear to be incorrect. Here is what it says at State recognized tribes:  "Typically, recognition is undertaken by the state legislature or by state agencies involved in cultural or Native American affairs."  State agencies are (usually) executive branch creations.  This would appear to leave the door open to any of several mechanisms by which a state may recognize a tribe, beyond a legislative enactment.  Is that page incorrect?  JohnInDC (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A "proclamation" is the executive equivalent of a legislative "resolution", which, while sounding nice, is essentially meaningless, like the proclamation that made May the "Asia-Pacific Heritage Month" in the USA. The USPS doesn't stop working in May or give its Asian-Pacific employees an entire month of paid vacaction. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Chuck, that you keep defending your position with what are merely variations on the same statement; and you never quite get around to backing it up with a source. And given that several of the things you've said have turned out to be wrong, despite your apparent knowledge of the field (state recognition is merely ceremonial, with no effect; state recognition has to be by statute, among others) I will remain unconvinced.  JohnInDC (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I keep repeating it to get it through your thick skull. A "proclamation" has all the legal force of a legislative resolution (which is to say none), yet you keep trying to insist in your ignorance of legal matters that it carries more weight than that.  I've actually editted the State recongized tribes page to indicated that a commission so established can acknowledge, or "recognize", an entity as a "tribe".  A governor alone cannot do so with a mere "proclamation". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Chuck, you're the one editing pages to add assertions that you can't or won't source, and defending the edits with shifting, inconsistent and oftentimes incorrect claims. Not me. I don't have to source my questions! JohnInDC (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are talking about one edit, which I have since corrected. Unlike many wiki editors, I do not feel the need to defend my edits in the face of facts.  Do not clutter up my talk page with posts like the one you just made because they are a waste of my time and I will report you for abuse.  If you have anything substantial to say, however, you are welcome to post here.  And, as others have requested you do, I request you get your own account and Talk page. It's free and relatively easy to0 set up. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do apologize for using your Talk page for discussion that more appropriately is associated with an article. I'll place any further comments at Talk:Northern_Cherokee_Nation_of_the_Old_Louisiana_Territory.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. You do need a Talk page of your own, by the way.  As one who's interested in adding accurate material on the Cherokee in general and has a particular admiration/hate of James Vann, I have to say thanks for the additions. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing me with that anon IP user - I've got my own account (and had nothing to do with those well-informed changes other than to help the fellow figure out what kind of material he had on his hands)! JohnInDC (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

I acknowledge that you're only one half of the war and will be posting warnings on the Talk pages of the IP editors too, once I can figure out which ones are due it. JohnInDC (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * John, when clearly you have no knowledge or information of the subject, as you yourself have admitted, why do you insist on inserting yourself into a disagreement? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because neither one of you is improving the page in keeping with Wikipedia's policies. An IP editor adds an unsourced, apparently POV statement to a page.  You revert it, saying (without sourcing it) that it's untrue and trivial.   They add it back, saying (again without sourcing it) that it's indeed true, and in fact special.  You revert it again, saying (without sourcing it) that it's just self-serving and a crock.  Do you see that this is going nowhere, that this thing is going to go back and forth until one of you gets sick of it, or blocked - and in the meantime readers of the article have no clue about which claim is true (or if the truth is somewhere in the middle) because no one can be bothered to give a source for what they're saying, or find some middle ground?  I may not know anything about the area but as a result I have *no stake* in the points of view expressed in this article other than to try to ensure that it's a good one that explains the subject matter fairly and comprehensively.  Some might say that qualifies me even more than the people who know the area backwards and forwards.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately "logic" like that is what allows so many errors of fact onto Wikipedia, and is the only reason this "article" wasn't deleted for lack of worth, because several people who had no idea what they are talkinga about voted to keep it because in their opinion a splinter group of a disintegrated larger pseudo-Indian organization which has never offered a shred of evidence for its claims was "notable". Yes, we've been through this before, I am merely reiterating that in this field you are an amateur with no idea of what you are talking about. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding a comment...
You might want to strike and refactor part of this edit considering an apparent typo of "Mormon". The other editor in the dispute seems to have taken offense at the typo which could be misconstrued as a highly inappropriate joke about Mormonism. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a typo, thanks for letting me know. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

WQA notice
Hi, Chuck. Considering the ongoing matters at the NCNOLT talk page, here and apparently elsewhere, I've filed a Wikiquette alert regarding your conduct to request outside input. I'm very concerned that your behavior is going to both drive away other editors and cause you to burn out or eventually wind up blocked for incivility, and I'm hoping this can help bring you around. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The NCNOLT is a fraudulent organization with no basis for their claims. I'll be more circumspect in my comments, but on what I just stated there's no wiggle room. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Kituwa
You might want to check the recent additions to the Kituwa article when you get a chance. I'm not sure they're worthy of a serious article. Bms4880 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I've been busy with Iranian stuff, talking to folks in Iran.  I reverted the changes based on the fact that the "references" are to self-published material. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

On Mohammad Mosaddegh
I have now namually copied and pasted the contents of "Mohammad Mossaddegh" (along with the contents of its corresponding talk page) to "Mohammad Mosaddegh", so as to avoid the problem arising from the existence of the Redirect page with the latter name. Should be grateful if you would kindly inspect and see whether I have transferred things properly. Kind regards, --BF 18:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC).


 * Cool as far as I'm concerned. Everything looks good as far as the content and discussion.  The history of the Mosaddegh page, however, probably can't be moved, at least not by common editors like you and I.  However, sooner or later some administrator is going to notice and take care of that for us. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your prompt response. In the case that you know some helpful higher-up editor, you might like to bring the issue to her/his attention (presenting also an explanatory note regarding the background of the brute-force action on my part) &mdash; is it unforgivable if that "history" somehow gets lost (but, as you are aware, copying-and-pasting was the only possibility at my disposal). Kind regards, --BF 18:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC).


 * You might like to participate in this discussion. --BF 12:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR in Massacre at Ywahoo Falls
Please be advised that you have now reverted source information in Massacre at Ywahoo Falls three times within the last 24 hours. . Abby Kelleyite (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Abby, you clearly have no idea about the subject or even area of knowledge upon which you are commenting, nor the definition of a credible source. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Chuck, I have no interest in arguing with you and am not trying to provoke you. "Credible source" is not a Wikipedia concept. A WP:RS reliable source is the standard and there is also a difference in whether the source is being used to establish notability as opposed to veracity. Like most of those who have commented in the AFD, I find the story of the massacre dubious, nonetheless the story has made it into reliable sources (as opposed to credible sources) and is therefore notable under our criteria. That said, the resulting article and its title should fully reflect the dubious nature of the story. This is done by citing other reliable sources (which are being cited) not by deleting the sources that treat the story as true or as a legend. Ad hominem attacks against authors or other editors with whom you disagree are likely not to be considered persuasive. I readily admit that I am no expert on the Cherokee in Kentucky. I am, however, endeavoring to follow our procedures of WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. I wish you well. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources are not reliable either, and for someone who has "no interest in arguing", you certainly do a lot of it. A mention in the Yahoo Falls article should be sufficient for a story of so little merit. Have you actually READ the page on reliable sources, and do you UNDERSTAND it?  Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

from an anonymous reader, who is not really much of a wikipedia editor, I would have liked to have read that article. I also thought that the angel hair article was perfect the way it was. no offense meant to anyone, but I would have read it, you see Stephen King once said "We make up horrors to deal with the real ones." If, and only If, that article was completely fictionalized, maybe it was his way of coping, with a real horror. the only other RATIONAL idea is that he was telling the complete and utter truth as he saw it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.216.27.52 (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Oh and Abby, I hope I didn't get you in trouble by posting that one fringe soul to another is this really important? to some of the mainstream Forteans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.216.27.52 (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Massacre at Ywahoo Falls
Although I completely agree that the article fails reliable sources, notability, etc and shouldn't be perpetuated, this seems to imply you've become too personally invested in this issues. Many other editors may see actions such as this as provocative, and it could hurt the chances of a fair outcome in the AFD. Maybe you should step back and let the AFD run its course? Regards,  He  iro 00:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the one about original research, which didn't really fit, but the others all do. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This was you're 3rr on this issue, I'd suggest not going over it.  He  iro 17:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hellenistic Yehud
Re Yehud Medinata: the Greek name was Ioudaia, from whence the Latin Iudaea. But it could be useful to extend the history into the Hellenistic period. But again, if this is done, the sections on the earlier period need to be shortened to make room. But yet again, there is some interesting material that can be used: Finkelstein questions the history in Ezra-Nehemiah on archaeological grounds (he finds no sign of a Persian-period wall as described in Nehemiah). His findings have been queried by Zevit and others and the debate is ongoing - see this page, the second item.PiCo (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"Recognized by Wikipedia"
Don't to make a WP:POINT. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has no right to recognize tribes not acknowledged as such by the federal government. Giving a pathetic wannabe organization such as the Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky or the Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory an article specifically dedicated to them amounts to recognition.  Such groups seize on ANY AMOUNT of acknowledgement that they get from anywhere.  Not only is providing those groups a venue to claim validation an insult deeply resented by actual Indians, it hurts the credibility of Wikipedia and leaves it open to poissibly being co-respondents should actual tribes decide to bring lawsuits.  However, I hear your command and will obey. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I mentioned you at WP:ANI. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, it is NOT up to me to prove that the SCNK does not have state recognition but to the SCNK that it does. They have never supplied such proof. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In other news, a prominent representative in the United States Congress spoke urgently of the need to establoish a Department of Defense. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on State recognized tribes. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
 * 3) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * I have made a formal complaint and call for assistance regarding your actions on the page to which you refer already. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reported you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, so an uninvolved admin will make the call.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that you were the person with whom I am having the disagreement, it was highly improper of you to leave that message on my page. You should have waited for the third party to take action. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The message is a friendly (though templated) warning. Anyone who would rather you stop editwarring rather than see you blocked could leave that. Leaving a template is not taking action; it is a note that action might be taken--by someone else, not by Sarek. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the info. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at State recognized tribes
Hello Natty4bumpo/Chuck Hamilton. The 3RR report at WP:AN3 will benefit from a commment from you. The fact that you are continuing to revert at State recognized tribes, even after you were told that an edit-warring report is open, will probably not impress the closing admin. EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The notice above states that if there is a dispute, it should be resolved on the articles talk page. A third person intervened, and it was his edits I reverted.  I am not sure where to comment on that link and would appreciate information on how to do do. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I figured it out, but thank you anyway. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked
Blocked 24h for edit warring per Sarek's report; I see the pattern exists at Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky and probably elsewhere. Revert once, and then discuss, is the wise path. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael Collins (Irish leader)
I've reverted your quite dramatic edits to this article rather than tagging each addition requiring citations because there also appears to be an element of original research. Please feel free to dispute this at the relevant Talk Page. RashersTierney (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, all those changes came from Coogan's bio of Collins, and maybe his book on the IRA, I can't remember which right offhand, probably both. But I am sure of those facts, because they were argued extensively on various Irish republican lists using those as references. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of it might have come from John Devoy's biography. He was head of Clan na Gael during the War for Independence and a one-time member of the IRB. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that Rashers has pointed out that Michael Collins (Irish leader) could fall under the Troubles 1RR restriction, I think it would be wise to restrict yourself there, regardless of whether it's been formally tagged. The relevant arbitration case was quite clear that any articles related to Irish nationalism were covered. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Troubles were 1969-1998 while Collins died in 1922; I fail to see the relevance of the first to the second. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you repeatedly fail to read the part about "Arbcom says any articles relating to Irish nationalism are covered", that's really not my problem.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder how that would play in a federal court. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. What grounds are you suggesting would apply to a privately-run website? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are clearly oblivious to constitutional law. And you are also about to be in violation of the 3RR rule. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, what part of constitutional law applies to how a privately-owned website is run? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Wikipedia is open to the entire public, pretty much the whole thing. It is a public forum regardless of whether it is privately owned or not.  Now, if people had to pay dues, that would be different but since everyone in the world can access it, for free, it all applies.  You should read some case law. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "in the world" -- ok, so which constitution are you suggesting should apply? All of them? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Wikipedia is based in San Francisco, the American constitution of course. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, "some case law" is a bit general for me. Got anything specific, that actually applies to websites? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not sure if there has been a case of directly relevant to Wikipedia yet, but I do know from similar privately-run but public forums that the free speech provisions of the first amendment give pretty much everyone who does anything on Wikipedia standing to sue. Not my style, I don't even care enough to go that far, but some of the ways in which Wikipediua currently operates does leave it open for that. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Craigslist was and still is a privately run website. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And that's relevant because... ? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky
Wow Chuck - I was persuaded in your treatment of that article that you are a commited afficianado of Native American interests. Above I discover you seek to speak for Irish Republicans like myself also. It seems there is no limit to your knowledge or presumption. Mark Dask 18:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky
If you are finished editing this article I will now format the references. Do please let me know. Mark  Dask  19:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Stand Watie
You say that none of the facts in the "Early life" section are in dispute, but ideally every fact in an article should be cited to a reliable source. This doesn't have to mean a plethora of footnotes; at the minimum it should be one per paragraph, though. I was assessing Stand Watie for inclusion in Selected anniversaries/June 25, but was not able to use it because of the lack of citations there (and as it turns out, June 25 is not a related date anyway). Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 22:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the standard is for sources, with in-line citations recommended, especially for disputed material. Sources are all that is required for an article. I can't think of any way 25 June would be significant for Stand Watie anyway. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CITE says that any that might be challenged should be cited. At any rate, the article was mistakenly in the pool for June 25 instead of June 23 (surrender date). Without those citations, though, it will still be omitted next year.  howcheng  {chat} 08:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What will be omitted, the whole article? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use violate WP:ERA, as you did at Phoenicia, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have a valid reason that complies with WP:NPOV to convert the date format of Phoenicia, please explain it on the article talk page (as required by) WP:ERA instead of continuing to change the format without a reason appropriate under WP:ERA. It appears that your current reason is very POV of a religious nature. Also please see WP:AGF before accusing someone else of bad faith; I am doing nothing more than maintaining the current date format per WP:MOS. VMS Mosaic (talk)


 * Dude, it is your editing that is disruptive. The overwhelming designations for years in the article in question was the more secular BCE/CE system, yet you used that fact there were two deviations from this to change the entire system to the Christian BC/AD system, clearly in line with your anti-political correctness drive which you have stated on your profile.  The rule you reference prescribes that the system of designation be harmonized within an article; to truly harmonize the system of designations in the Phoenicia article, you should jhave changed the two to harmonize with the rest of the article rather than take it upon yourself to change the system in opposition to nearly every other editor of said article.  The Phoenicia article is not a "Christian" article any more than the world or the Universe are Christian.


 * YOU drew first blood, so to speak; it was YOU who made first made a radical change without adequate justification. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In addition, the two examples of the AD designation which gave you the excuse to attempt to do what you did were used incorrectly. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about???? I did nothing more than revert the IP editor who changed the article from BC to BCE  right before I put it back.  I would call you insane, but that would violate WP:AGF.  Sorry, but I guess I need to start conflict resolution since we are both at the point of WP:3RR. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * went back several years and it does seem the BC/AD system was the original system, so feel free to reverse my changes with no argument from me. Just make sure that in incidents of AD, the two letters go before the year, not after. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem at this point is that I can't put it back without violating 3RR. I already asked for full protection of the article which I will retract if its not too late.  I hope we can be on better terms in the future. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a problem with editors reversing their own changes, so I did. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

3RR/Natural-born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Your recent editing history at Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.The proposed edits that you have twice attempted to insert have been discussed extensively on the talk page and the archives. Please review those, and then discuss concerns on the talk page. Thanks. --Weazie (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My problem with their original deletion was that it was done wholesale by a single editor. The content is not even mine.  Sources for the material were given within the body of the content and there was no valid reason for the deletion.  Given that, I could also pursue having YOU blocked for edit warring. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you mention discussion, that should have taken place BEFORE the deletion that started this whole process. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The deletion was NOT selective, but wholesale. In addition to the Vattel material, the Supreme Court cases, which dealt with natural born citizenship, were removed as well due to a lazy "undo" revert. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I just read thru the material more carefully. God, what a mess.  It should have been removed just for that. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Do not insert your original research at Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution. Like all Wikipedia editors, you are unqualified to decide if a modern law about citizenship affects who is eligible to serve as president. I have reverted your original research. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dude, despite what your birther ideology may tell you, quoting the U.S. Code is no more original research than is quoting the U.S. Constitution. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am reporting the following personal attack at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: "your birther ideology". Jc3s5h (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. This is my personal Talk page, and you were not invited.  We can always take it to a real court if you like. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what you are missing is that the statute states what the requirements are to be a citizen at birth. There is disagreement among reliable sources as to whether the phrase citizen at birth and the phrase natural born citizen mean the same thing. Mystylplx (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really, no, there's not. The only real question is whether citizens by birth necessarily are entitled to run for president. Thus the various proposed legislation seeking to clarify the matter. If a person wishes to dispute the two mean the same thing, someone else could counter that anyone born by Caesarean section or conceived by in vitro fertilization is ineligible. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually there is some disagreement on that, but I do agree that this viewpoint is given undue weight in the article. Mystylplx (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.The proposed edits that you have now three times attempted to insert, in addition to your previous edits, have been discussed extensively on the talk page and the archives -- and are presently being discussed there. Please discuss concerns on the talk page. Thanks. --Weazie (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)--Weazie (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reported your edit warring.  --Weazie (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Chuck, not everyone who observes that there is controversy regarding "natural born citizen" vs. "citizen at birth" is a "birther". I, for one, am definitely not a birther.  We're simply acknowledging that there is (and historically has been) disagreement over the exact meaning of "natural born citizen" — a state of affairs which long predates the current epidemic of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.


 * Also, a reminder that we (Wikipedia editors) are strongly advised to be civil at all times when discussing matters with our peers. Subtle nuances which are obvious in face-to-face conversation may not carry over to a print-only medium.  We should avoid saying things that might be misunderstood as attacks or threats — and, by the same token, we should try to give others some amount of benefit of the doubt and accept that they might not really have intended something to be a personal attack.  And since Wikipedia has a very strong policy against legal threats, it's probably best not even to joke around here about taking someone to court (just as you would never joke about certain subjects in an airport or on a plane) — not anywhere on the site, not even on your own user page or talk page.  I see you've been involved with Wikipedia for some time now, so you've probably been exposed to this stuff before, but maybe a gentle reminder is in order.


 * And for what it's worth, I note that you've been blocked for two days for violating WP:3RR. This block was imposed by, not by me.  —  Rich wales (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"Citizen by birth" and "natural born citizenship" are the same thing. The two terms are used interchangeably in laws and court rulings. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Cites, please? —  Rich wales (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Common sense for starters, but I've seen several while researching this online the past few days. But since this is my talk page, not that of an article, that's all the explanation you're due.  If you want them, go find them yourself. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you had asked more politely and less demandingly blunt as if you had a right to speak to me like that, you would have received a more polite answer. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I meant no insult, and I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my abbreviated question as being discourteous. Understand, though, that if you do decide to try to add the above "used interchangeably" claim to the article after your block expires, you will be expected to back up your claim with citations to reliable sources.  Per WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."  —  Rich wales (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm washing my hands of that particular article. Y'all have fun. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And given your stated wishes, I've taken the liberty of removing a comment on the article that was left here, and moving it to the article's talk page where it belongs. —  Rich wales (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to John Ridge, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * The information is ahistorical and out of place. There is no reason to mention it there, and it is beyond question that by the time of John Ridge there was little or no clan system among the Cherokee. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Citations. The clan system is very much alive today so you need to find some citations to back up your deletion of content. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * You offered no sources for those assertions. The fact that you believe the clan system is still alive today demonstrates that you have a tendency to follow pseudohistory and New Age Indianism rather than actual history and reality-based thought. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, Chuck, the editor above is prolly one of the few editors on here that I would definitely not say that about. Check their history, they are an academic and a Native American, and if I remember correctly a teacher of some kind at a university.  He  iro 16:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, to a large extent Uyvsdi's posts are balanced and more realistic than others, but in this case the idea that the clan system as such still operated in the late 18th and early 19th centuries as it once did is a fantasy. In particular, with these "young chiefs", no attempt to adhere to matrilineal ties or traditional Cherokee inheritance existed.  They operated their families and treated their wealth and property the same as patriarchal whites.  The fact that James Vann had his father's name, John Ross had his father's name, and and John Ridge his father's should be sufficient evidence that these men at least did not follow what had been traditional Cherokee practice.  James Vann's father was a trader and he inherited his father's wealth and lived all his early life in his father's household.  John Ridge grew up and lived in his father's house and went to white schools and when he struck out on his own established his own plantation called Running Waters, complete with African American slaves.  John Ross never lived with the Cherokee until entering Cherokee politics, and was thus never part of the already dead clan system.  Yes, some attempts to revive the system by the nostalgic have recently taken place, but attempt is all it is. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.-Uyvsdi (talk)Uyvsdi

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to James Vann, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Uyvsid

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at John Ross (Cherokee chief), you may be blocked from editing. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at John Ridge, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * Do you have a lawyer? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Stop trying to push your fantasies about the Cherokee clan system in places where they really don't belong. All three of the men whom you want to attempt to attach to your fantasy were thoroughly aculturated and had nothing to do with traditional Cherokee society, much less the anachronistic clan system.  It's just not relevant.  Plus, what you put about John Ridge was simply wrong; the "Susannah of the Deer Clan" was his grandmother, not his mother, whose name was Susannah Wickett, daughter of a Scots-Irish trader, and no one has ever made a claim about which alleged clan Susannah Wickett supposedly belonged to.  You have serious POV problems.


 * FYI: Wikipedia having a policy against legal threats won't help you in a court of law, and in fact may hurt. In the short term, yes, I could be blocked for violating that policy, however, the policy itself would not stand up in court.  Wikipedia being such a public forum would make blocking me for that a serious and actionable violation of freedom of speech.  Besides, this is MY talk page, not yours or that of one of the articles, so I assume I would have more latitude here than elsewhere. In fact, you are invading what might be considered my private space with material that might be considered more appropriate to the Talk pages of the related articles. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt the clan system survived in some fashion among the full-blood traditionalists in areas such as the town of Etowah, and the Hill towns and Valley Towns of western North Carolina. But among the Upper and Lower Towns it was completely dead by the end of the 18th century.  Its functions of protection and retaliation were legally dead all over the Nation after the governmental reforms that began with the establishment of the Lighthorse Guard.  The insertion of the material we've been arguing over is out of place.  If you're trying to build a case that the clan system retained any sort of function in the 19th century do not attempt to do it by riding on the backs of well-known individuals to whom the idea of being described as involved in what they would considered primitive would be an insult.  John Ross, John Ridge, and James Vann were three of the most acculturated citizens of the Cherokee Nation, the "young chiefs" at the forefront of attempts to make Cherokee citizens more like their white neighbors.  That's like arguing that the Ridges were anti-Treaty while John Ross was at the forefront of the signers. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 14:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I formally and permanently withdraw any threats of legal action and apologize for losing my temper. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * While we're here, though, perhaps we should talk about your recent history. Edit warring, disruption, personal attacks on other editors, and now legal threats - please understand that, while we are very forgiving and attempt to help people work through problems they run into while working on Wikipedia, there's a limit to our good faith. There's only so much that an apology and promises can do. I'll unblock you, but you need to give me an indication of your good faith first. Something that reassures me that you're here with the best intentions in mind, that you understand edit-warring is not the way to do things, that you understand how to resolve content disputes, and that you don't intend on offending or attacking other users. If you can do that, you'll be allowed to edit again. Please respond below whenever you'd like. m.o.p  18:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And for the record, you have no legal right to edit wikipedia, free speech does not apply-- Jac 16888 Talk 18:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Master of Puppets: I'm probably not going to be contributing very much any more, not because of being blocked but because of some of the things I've encountered that have led to some of my misbehavior. Yes, I admit I should have handled those things better, but I do not see the general issues I have being resolved any time soon, if ever. In this case, I probably would have handled things differently if Uyvsdi had debated on the articles' Talk pages, the proper place for such discussions, instead of here. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you don't wish to be unblocked? And 'probably' is not good enough - we need 'definitely'. m.o.p  20:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If there's any kind of conflict in the future, I will simply drop it without any further discussion. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Given your retraction of the above legal threats, and your promise to stay away from any conflicts or disputes in the future, I'll unblock you. All of your privileges are re-instated, but please note that you are on unsteady ground - any further disruption and the next block will be permanent. Disruption means: removing content without discussion, reverting other editors, personally attacking them, and all the other behaviours listed at WP:DISRUPT. If you need anything else, or would like to ask questions, let me know. Best of luck, m.o.p  20:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for unblocking me. At the moment, I am still blocked, though. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's odd - per your block log, you were unblocked as of my original message. Try clearing your cache and see if that makes a difference. m.o.p  21:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * When I try to edit, it says the block is set to expire at 1545 tomorrow, so I can wait. Thanks for everything. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You were still autoblocked, which I've just lifted. You should be able to edit now.  Swarm   X 03:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, very much. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I forgot to check autoblocks. Apologies! m.o.p  05:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No big deal, you've both been a great deal of help. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We do what we can! Let us know if you need any help. Cheers, m.o.p  06:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it, and I will, Chuck Hamilton (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to James Vann. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. Despite everything, you are still deleting referenced information. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * The article is not about the Cherokee clan system, it is about James Vann. You have offered nothing to show how the two are related, other than that James Vann is a member of the Wild Potato Clan by virtue of his mother.  There is nothing that says JAMES VANN inherited or bequeathed any of his property along matrilineal lines to counter the abundance of evidence to the contrary. I suggest you read the books I referenced in the Talk page for John Ross. And the material isn't offensive, it is simply inaccurate and misleading and out of place.  I don't care if information offends me as long as it is accurate and not misleading and belongs. There is not one single iota in your reference to support the inclusion of the statement "The Cherokee had a matrilineal system of hereditary leadership and property control" as part of the James Vann article.  Indeed, the proposition that it relates to him is belied by the statement about his becoming a "wealthy planter and slaveholder".Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of the material on property in James Vann's article is particularly inappropriate since his will and its execution were in large part responsible for the destruction of matrilineal inheritance. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Delbhna
Mighty work on the above, especially the inclusion of a map. However!


 * 1 - Cuile Fabhair was a much smaller territory than Maigh Seóla. It appears to have being what was later called Clann Fhergail, who were given an (fake) Uí Briúin pedigree.


 * 2 - Your source makes the Uí Fathartaigh chiefs of Cuile Fabhair. Actually, they were of the Uí Briúin, and their area was much further to the north-east in County Galway.

I'd be weary of the sources cited, as they are are second or third hand accounts. Mac Fhirbhisigh, which I used in the original article, was both a professional genealogist and a Gaeilgeoir, so his work should be given primacy.

Is mise, Fergananim (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment and the info. One question, though, are you sure you're not mixing O'Flaherty with O'Faherty?  Theformer was indeed of the Ui Bruin, and became lords of Connemara but the O'Fahertys were a different group.  Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. Medieval Ireland needs all the good maps it can get. No, but the mistake is understandable - people to this day in Connacht still think Faherty is a version of Flaherty. I had assumed they (the Uí Fathartaigh) were native though unrelated to the Uí Flaithbertaigh. However, MacCotter's "Medieval Ireland" demonstrates their orgins lie among the Síol Muireadaigh, who had being expanding westwards during the 9th and 10th centuries. Eventually, the Uí Conchobhair forced the Uí Flaithbertaigh west across Loch Orbsen. Another common mistake is confusing the Uí Fathartaigh with the Uí Fathaigh (Fahy). This latter family were quite a distance away, in the foothills of the Slieve Aughty. My own guess - and academic opinion seems to agree - is that the Delbhna Cuile Fabhair's ruling line became known as the Clann Fhergail, and renamed the territory after themselves. When the Síol Muireadaigh began expanding, the Clann Ferghail found it expedient to 'discover' they too were of Connachta descent (like the Síol Muireadaigh). However, I better check MacCotter again just to be sure. Fergananim (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Standing Turkey Portrait
The portrait itself is actually in the Gilcrease Museum in Oklahoma. If you read the Smithsonian link a little further, you'll see that what they have in their collection is an "8x10 black and white photograph" of the picture. I think the caption should at least reflect the right museum, but most importantly, the caption shouldn't indicate that the picture is actually Standing Turkey. See my discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America for the discussion I'm currently having about reorganization, because the whole Oconostota-Standing Turkey-Kanagatucko-Principal Chiefs of the Cherokee line of articles is rotten with confusion and conflated personalities. Cdtew (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, my mistake on where the actual painting is, but you said look at the file and the file says it is Standing Turkey. According to Raymond Evans, one of the two founders of the Journal of Cherokee Studies, the picture is of Standing Turkey.  Parsons did three leaders, if I remember correctly. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There's also this: http://books.google.com/books?id=ZPVEos7PKIgC&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=gilcrease+museum+portrait+of+standing+turkey&source=bl&ots=J4InrsRJw1&sig=r02fEmKpVExlSVTHJ-2Lyk7KCNI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9j7jUI2VKIaw8ATMioCABA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=gilcrease%20museum%20portrait%20of%20standing%20turkey&f=false Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't think I was being very clear. What I meant was that I agree that the portrait is of Standing Turkey, but that other scholars (see: James Oliphant: Peace and War on the Anglo-Cherokee Frontier, 1756-63, LSU Press) say that Standing Turkey was a title used by both Kanagatucko (Connecorte) and Oconostota, but Oliphant doesn't use it in relation with the person who succeeded Connecorte ("Old Hop") and preceded Oconostota as the Beloved Man. Therefore, I think that (a) the article titled "Standing Turkey" is slightly misleading, in that the name was used variously across Anglo resources (whcih are all we really have for this), and (b) that the picture in that article is misleading, in that the picture is only labeled "Cunne Shote", and there's no real consensus on which person Cunne Shote was, other than that he was also called "Standing Turkey".Cdtew (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I see the person who succeeded Connecorte/Kanagatucko is called "Ukah Ulah" in Conley's Cherokee Encyclopedia. I just think we need to put our heads together, figure out the correct, standard naming conventions, apply them to all three Anglo-Cherokee War leaders, and clean this up a bit.  Cdtew (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of an "Ukah Ulah" nor seen that name of title anywhere. The Kanagatucko article should probably be moved to a page called Old Hop because that is what he is better known as.  -- Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that I look at it, Oliphant has the leaders listed in this order: Connecorte (Old Hop) --> Kanagatucko (who he calls Standing Turkey) --> Attakullakulla --> Oconostota.  Perhaps, then, we need to create Old Hop, and transfer the information from Kanagatucko to that; then transfer the informaiton from Standing Turkey to Kanagatucko, and leave Attakullakulla and Oconostota alone?  Also, as for Ukah Ulah, I believe that's an alternate name or title for Kanagatucko, who succeeded Old Hop, and I provided a reference for it above. Cdtew (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

12th night
I've tagged this for NPOV - this and the day articles need to reflect the fact that there is no definitive single date for 12th night. Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Doug, just count: (1) 25 December, (2) 26 December, (3) 27 December, (4) 28 December, (5) 29 December, (6) 30 December, (7) 31 December, (8) 1 January, (9) 2 January, (10) 3 January, (11) 4 January, (12) 5 January, (13) 6 January. There are only 12 days in Christmas.  My only POV problem is that I can count. The only confusion is whether to celebrate Twelfth Night on the eve of 5 January or that night.  6 January is NOT part of Christmas.  Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Counting like that is OR. What counts is when people actually celebrate/celebrated it. Others start with the 26th. I added clearly reliable sources to the talk page. That's what counts. Pun intended. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Doug, I assume you want Wikipedia to be a credible source of information; well, relying on material from pop culture news articles from tabloid newspapers that are obviously not well sourced and therefore providing misinformation for readers tends to weight against that. I've been Catholic or Episcopalian all my life, I almost became a priest even, and 6 January is most definitely NOT Twelfth Day.  It doesn't even matter if some people think it is or that idiot Beckford published a misinformed article saying that it is.  6 January is the Feast of the Epiphany, not part of Christmas, never has been.  It is not a matter of opinion.  Whether people celebrate Twelfth Night on the eve of 5th January or the evening at the end of 5th January does not make any difference to me.  Yes, in medieval times, and still the case liturgically, Twelfth Night falls on the eve, what we would call the night of 4th January, but considering that today we count the night of 5th January as part of that day, it's still legitimate to observe it then.  I changed the article again removing references to 6 January as Twelfth Day. Despite what Beckford say, no one observes Twelfth Night on the 6th, unless you can the night of 5th January as the beginning of the 6th.  Saying that is it is roughly the equivalent of saying that Lent ends the day after Easter. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See Twelve Days of Christmas, to which there is a link in this article. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Nice to see that article is more NPOV. And I wouldn't use Beckford, but I would use Twelfth Night edited by Rex Gibson, Anthony Partington, Richard Spencer, Vicki Wienand, Richard Andrews, Cambridge University Press, "In Elizabethan times, the twelve days after Christmas, up to Twelfth Night on 6 January (Epiphany), were traditionally a period of holiday and festival." and, "In 567 the Council of tours proclaimed that the entire period between Christmas and Epiphany should be considered part of the celebration, creating what became known as the twelve days of Christmas, or what the English called Christmastide. On the last of the twelve days, called Twelfth Night, various cultures developed a wide range of additional special festivities. The variation extends even to the issue of how to count the days. If Christmas Day is the first of the twelve days, then Twelfth Night would be on January 5, the eve of Epiphany. If December 26, the day after Christmas, is the first day, then Twelfth Night falls on January 6, the evening of Epiphany itself."[5] Christmas: A Candid History By Bruce David Forbes, University of California Press. Dougweller (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * IT IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION! Since ancient times Christmas has ALWAYS been twelve days starting on the 25th of December.  Any other assertion is WRONG.  It doesn't matter who says it, unless it were the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the leaders of the Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Reformed churches combined, because that is the only way Christmas would change.  If anyone observes Twelfth Night on 6 January IT IS A MISTAKE! Would you lecture a devout Muslim about how to observe Ramadan? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Chickamauga Wars article title
You previously discussed the title of Chickamauga Wars (1776–94) on that article's talk page. There is a move request discussion on the issue at Talk:Chickamauga Wars (1776–94) if you care to participate. —  AjaxSmack  03:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Chuck (NattyBumpo) - thanks for your comments on my edits on the Chickamauga Wars. I'm just amazed at how you and other managed to make this very complex series of events understandable - much needed given the many different references and names for parts of the wars. Thanks for your good work!Parkwells (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Fiver Lower Towns.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fiver Lower Towns.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ℜ ob C. alias ALAROB 00:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Fiver Lower Towns.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Fiver Lower Towns.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Fiver Lower Towns.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Fiver Lower Towns.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"Savage Napoleon" in Cherokee-American wars
Chuck, I am mystified by your attachment to the "savage Napoleon" label for Dragging Canoe, which you insist on keeping as a subsection title in Cherokee-American wars. You call it a "compliment." When is it a compliment to call someone "savage," especially an American Indian?

You also state that "several sources" use that term. Quoted material in Wikipedia should always be backed by a reliable source; otherwise it is subject to being removed. Kindly provide your sources.

Finally, you said that "this is just the title of a section." Are you suggesting that we take less care about the content of section titles than about the content of the rest of the article? Does large, bold-face type suggest to you that the text is less important?

Please review WP:5P. It would clear up a number of misconceptions that you appear to hold and that make it difficult to collaborate with you. If you object to collaboration, then you are in the wrong place. — ℜ ob C. alias ALAROB 22:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the subhead again, pending a source. I want to remind you of the three-revert rule which places a limit on how many times one may revert an edit within 24 hours. — ℜ ob C. alias ALAROB 22:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Old Southwest
Thanks for the thank-yous. I appreciate it. — ℜ ob C. alias ALAROB 16:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You deserve them. I appreciate all the things you are trying to do on the Cherokee and related subjects.  The undos before weren't personal and weren't meant to be proprietary.  I done a lot of clean-up and restructuring on the Cherokee-American wars articles to make it more linear and easier to tie into. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Irish Republican Brotherhood
I'm curious what you meant by this edit summary. Were you referring to John Devoy's Recollections of an Irish Rebel? Because I have now read that book, and it only goes up to August 1916, so it couldn't be a source for the dissolution of the IRB in 1924. It's not really wise to edit an article if you don't have the information to hand. I see you said back in 2009, "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." I would have hoped that after five years you would have accepted that what school you belong to doesn't matter, Wikipedia policy requires facts to be verifiable against reliable sources. And before you say "but nobody disputes it was dissolved in 1924", take a look at this edit made a few months ago in good faith based on reports that appeared in two national newspapers. Scolaire (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That "good faith edit" was clearly by someone punking Wikipedia. William James Maguire presiding over the IRB every 21 January at noon, and the source is "www.billymaguire.com"?  Do you seriously not see the problem with this?  No, it wasn't Devoy's book, it was the biography of him, Irish Rebel, but I checked and it wasn't there.  I actually can't remember the book.  This page has something interesting insight into the question: http://www.theirishstory.com/2013/11/11/to-not-fade-away-the-irish-republican-brotherhood-post-1916/#.U_k_DcVdWSp . Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, see here. It was a good faith edit, albeit by a supporter of Billy McGuire, saying only what had been reported in the Irish Independent and the Irish Times, Ireland's top two dailies. I would repeat that making statements based on what you think you once read in a book you can't remember is not good editorial practice. I have good reason to doubt that the Supreme Council voted to dissolve itself, and I have opened a discussion on the article talk page. --Scolaire (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The source given was the Billy Maguire website. Whether or not the website was reporting what the newspapers said does not matter, what matters is the link or links.  Also, it sounds like OR.  Everything written and published by reputable and valid sources says the IRB shut down in 1924, though they may disagree in how that came about. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know all that. I only gave it as an illustration of the need to provide citations for any and all facts that can possibly be disputed. You are even proving the point for me when you say that the edit was not a good one because he cited an unreliable source (billymcguire.com) instead of existing reliable sources (Independent or Times). However, it was not OR, by definition, because it could have been verified by reference to reliable sources, even if it was manifestly untrue. At least you're acknowledging the need for verifiability with your latest edit, but the edit is still OR, because it doesn't cite any sources. I hope to improve on that shortly, with citations. Scolaire (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome
Please read WP:BURDEN. If you want to add material then it's up to you to add appropriate references, not anyone else. That's especially true on a featured article. --Neil N  talk to me 22:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, please read the discussion on the talk page and WP:NOTVAND. --Neil N  talk to me 22:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Editwarring
Please stop adding information against consensus to a Featured article. Have a look at WP:EDITWAR and refrain from reinstating the text without first gaining consensus, or you could be blocked. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * My original additions were to an already existing section that Neil then eradicated entirely. My addition, which is now the sole mention, is most definitely relevant and supported by numerous sources. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Your recent editing history at Asperger syndrome shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Neil N  talk to me 07:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

1RR violation
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cheers, Tkuvho (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Secret account 19:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not see the notice that 1RR applied to Arab-Israeli issues and will abide by it when I am unblocked. It would help prevent other editors from violating that rule if that notice is on the actual page of the article rather than just on the Talk page.  I do not contest my having been blocked since I did violate the rule but I do object to the POV on that page which is anything but neutral. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the reason it isn't included in the article page itself is that it would appear to all those who read the article as well, and the sort of negative publicity having such a visible banner on an article, which would presumably also appear in any printouts, might be counterproductive. It might not be a bad idea to propose at the Village pump that the template on the talk page somehow produce something visible in the edit box of the article itself, and I don't actually know if that has ever been proposed. In any event, one 24-block honestly is not that big a deal. Many of us, me included, have been blocked for much longer than that. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I will look into that. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

12th Night
Please stop this. There is clear disagreement as to the date. Isn't that obvious? Or are you saying the Oxford Dictionary's statement it is the 6th (while giving the 5th as well), is immaterial, as are other sources that date it to the 6th? If you disagree, take it to WP:RSN or NPOVN Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug, there is no question about it. Yes, Oxford Dictionary is wrong, absolutely.  January is Epiphany, always has been since the fifth century.  Can you count?  Maybe you are having trouble, so let's walk through it step-by-step.  First Day of Christmas = 25 December; Second Day of Christmas = 26 December; Third Day of Christmas = 27 December; Fourth Day of Christmas = 28 December; Fifth Day of Christmas = 29 December; Sixth Day of Christmas = 30 December; Seventh Day of Christmas = 31 December; Eighth Day of Christmas = 1 January; Ninth Day of Christmas = 2 January; Tenth Day of Christmas = 3 January; Eleventh Day of Christmas = 4 January; Twelfth Day of Christmas = 5 January; were it part of Christmas at all, 6 January would be the Thirteenth Day of Christmas.  Now, per section IV of Pope Paul VI's encyclical entitled "Universal Norms on the Liturgical Year and the General Roman Calendar" (http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Calendar/Info/GNLY.pdf), Christmas Time now extends through to include the Sunday after Epiphany.  This, however, is not the historic Twelve Days of Christmas, as even the afore-mentioned encyclical notes. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Last of the Mohicans (1977 film), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hawkeye and Steve Forrest. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on Translation of Name
Seven years ago on the Kanagatucko talk page you shot down a user comment from '08 which pointed out that Kanagatucko is probably not the most accurate name for Cherokee leader Old Hop. I believe they are correct within the scope of modern scholarship. In addition to the sources they have provided, I can provide you with many other sources which give Old Hops given name as "Connecorte", including Dowd, Kelton, Oliphant, Tortora, Hatley, and Starr (the latter being Cherokee himself). This is also the name accepted by the National Park Service and North Carolina's wiki-like NCPedia. I personally have just spent the last semester writing my graduate term paper on the period of Old Hop's period of prominence in the 1750s prior to his death. Perhaps most persuasive of all, I have a primary source document to support my claim. In McDowell's oft-quoted Documents Relating to Indian Affairs, 1750-1754, the various Head Men of the Upper Cherokees wrote to Governor Glen and began their letter with this statement: “Connacrote [sic] the Head Man of Chote speaks for all” (on page 486). This Head Man of Chota as you know can be none other than Old Hop, and in addition, the letter is signed with Old Hop's mark. I hope you will reconsider your position in light of this evidence, and help me with the process to rename the page. I would like very much to contribute with my findings once it is corrected. Omniferous (talk) 10:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood. My comment had nothing to do with the most accurate translation, or rather transliteration, of the name; instead it was about the fact that "Kanagatucko" ("Stalking Turkey") and "Kunagadoga" ("Standing Turkey") were two completely separate people, two separate people who are often confused as the same person.  Kanagatucko was Old Hop; Kunagadoga was the nephew who succeeded him as First Beloved Man.  Both were leaders of the pro-French faction among the Cherokee.  As to the proper transliteration, there really is no such thing since transliterations, especially of things that old, are guess work.  Perhaps "Connecorte" was more common transliteration by white men of the Cherokee name at the time, but that does not make it any more or less "correct" than any other.  I do know that the trend among Cherokee for at least the past two or three decades has been to not use "c" for the "k" sound; for example, "Attakullakulla" rather than "Attacullaculla". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2017
 * Regardless, it makes sense to name a page in line with what a reader will expect to find in modern scholarship. I know of not one source primary or secondary which names Old Hop by Kanagatucko. In the same way that we have not named the page sulfur as "brimstone" - even though all names are arbitrary and to choose one name used at a different time or another is not any more or less correct. If readers want to do research of their own, finding this individual's name given in such an obscure way will only make it difficult to navigate scholarly journal archives (e.g.: JSTOR) and indexes of books (which typically list him under Connecorte, not Old Hop or Kanagatucko). Omniferous (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Henry Timberlake, who actually knew Old Hop, called him "Kanagatucko" in his memoirs. Please don't tell me that you do not recognize that name or call his memoirs "an obscure source" for any student of Cherokee history.  The Tennessee Historical Magazine used the name in an article in 1922.  The actual best option for the average person looking to find an article on the subject would be to move it back to Old Hop. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Or use the translation of the name, "Stalking Turkey". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed what I wrote because according to Raymond Evans, Connecorte was indeed Stalking Turkey, aka Kanagatucko. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Cherokee citizen categories
Hi - Apologies for putting this on this page, but I am asking for people knowledgeable about Cherokee citizenship and tribal law to weigh in on a discussion of certain Cherokee categories. I'm not asking you to support my proposal, but just for the discussion to have informed contributions. The discussion is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_30#Category:Cherokee_peopleVizjim (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Chief Redbird
Do you think that the sources at [] establish his existence? Because I added text at Massacre at Ywahoo Falls which challenges it, but it appears Coy's quote may be wrong. Any comments on Tankersley? Doug Weller talk 16:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's all fiction. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, but the material seems genuine although it's pretty clear they do not suggest he was a chief. Tankersley wrote a lot of fiction about him. Doug Weller  talk 08:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The whole "Massacre at Yahoo Falls" and the people it mentions are completely fictional. There was no such group anywhere near Kentucky. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. I've been editing it but I don't know how much more can be done to make it clear its fiction. Doug Weller  talk 13:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You have done a pretty good job of that, except for those with a strong desire or other motive to believe the fiction. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm still not convinced something not discussed in reliable sources belongs. Doug Weller  talk 14:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It probably doesn't. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Why did you undo a link to a Wiki article? That is a disservice to readers
It is mentioned in the Edit summary: repeated link; pls consider reverting your revert Jan Hejkrlík (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Amouskositte for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amouskositte is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Amouskositte until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. MeilingHong (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)