User talk:Philkon

Gallery on Phil Konstantin
Hiya Phil (I assume that you're actually Phil Konstantin), Listen we don't usually put so many pictures onto pages, especially bios. This isn't Facebook or Myspace, you know? You should also be careful because someone will likely come after you wielding our conflict of interest policy and/or Autobiography. I appreciate your efforts here, and I certainly won't give you grief about trying to improve Phil Konstantin, but it's important to be aware of the above issues. If you can locate and add references to third party published info, that would be terrific. — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 12:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that as well. Please don't edit your own article, or upload excessive personal photos. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Phil Konstantin (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Phil

Congratulations
Congrats! to you and especially your daughter! You really should avoid editing your own article here, though. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 07:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy Philkon's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Olivenhain Dam
Thanks for the picture! Let me know if you ever fly around China, we need plenty of dam pictures from there.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

IP edits
Please do not undo an edit just because it was made by an IP, as you did at Play-Doh. The edit is a valid challenge of unsourced material, not vandalism or test editing. Instead, supply reliable sources as to the importance of the material, and remember that IPs are allowed to edit Wikipedia. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC) - - -

"unsourced material": I saw the movie and the story about Play-Doh plays a significant part. Watch the movie yourself and see for yourself.

Please provide sourced material which proves PlayDoh is NOT mentioned.


 * Something being mentioned in a movie does not make it notable enough for an encyclopedia.
 * Did the movie mention of the item drive up sales?
 * Did the makers of the item pay an outrageous amount to have it mentioned in the movie?
 * Were the makers payed outrageously so the item could be mentioned in the movie?
 * Did the makers use the item's mention in the movie as a selling point in a major ad campaign?
 * Has the movie's mention of the item become a phenomena, sweeping nations and/or hearts?
 * Any of these things could be included in an encyclopedia article, as long as it was covered by a reliable source - blogs, clip sites, and real estate agencies are not reliable sources about overall social impact, sales, product placements in movies, or movie production costs. ("I saw the movie" does not make either one of us a reliable source.) The rules about original research also forbid us from saying, "It's mentioned on so many sites, it's got to be important!" Find a single reliable source and the mentioned-in-a-movie statement is no longer trivial, and I will be very happy to leave it alone (I cannot speak for User:Fat&Happy).


 * All of the above also holds true for "The Simpsons" mention/use.


 * You might benefit from reading this section of the WP:POPCULTURE essay, especially paragraph 3. Also, please sign your comments on user talk pages. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I read the article and my assessment remains true. The mention of Play-Doh to make a very specific point (and what some feel is the best part of the movie) does make it a relevant point. Why would someone buy the product because it was mentioned in a movie make it relevant? And yet quite a few bloggers have used the story in the movie to illustrate a point. I do not understand your mentioning of if Play-doh paid to have its product in the movie. Do you know this happened? How would it make sense without the story being told as a part of the movie. Are you saying Play-Doh went all over Hollywood seeking out a writer who would write a story so Play-Doh could be used in it because it has an interesting story? First you accuse Play-Doh paying to have it included, and now you say they should have an ad campaign because it was mentioned? Those seem contradictory. You said it was unsourced. yes, I saw the movie. You said it was still unsourced. So, I provided clips of the movie showing the story. Now you offer contradictory justification, or the lack there of, that it is not culturally relevant. I do not support the Simpson's TV inclusion as having much significance. But, many people have blogged about the story in the movie. Gee, is it as culturally significant as the bombing in Boston? No, of course not. However, it would be significant for anyone looking up Play-Doh.

If the movie had only shown a can of Play-Doh on a wall, in a box of toys, or even a child playing with it without mention (perhaps product placement), I would agree with you. It is the story behind PlayDoh and its detailed story, and how the story changes the outlook of the movie, and how many people have blogged about it that make it more than just a tiny blip of info.

Finally, please provide a detailed and annotated definition of "reliable source." You keep moving the goalposts.

By your definition, PlayDoh itself should not be in Wikipedia.

If you feel this inclusion is so abhorrent, please submit it for arbitration.

Phil Konstantin Phil Konstantin (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Philkon

Reliable sources

 * No goalposts have been moved; I have been asking for a reliable source since my first deletion. Without a reliable source the movie mention in the Play-Doh article is trivial and unencyclopedic. If you do not know what a reliable source is, please read this page, which I linked to you previously. I also suggest you read Verifiability as to why reliable sources are important, and No original research, which you are indulging in with "...my assessment", "...what some feel..." and "...many people have blogged...".
 * My bulleted list above were examples of what a reliable source might actually be talking about in regards to the movie monologue. If all you care about is having the monologue mentioned in the Plah-Doh article, any subject like those would work. If you specifically want some mention of how so many people have blogged about it, you have to find a reliable source that talks about the monologue in such a way. If it is to be put into a Wikipedia article it has to be said somewhere in a reliable source first. As the editor wishing to add to an article, it is up to you to supply a reliable source for contested material. Find a reliable source about the movie monologue's cultural impact and add the source to the article, and all this stops.
 * Wrt arbitration: we are nowhere near that yet. First we have to go through dispute resolution, such as third opinion, reliable sources noticeboard, requests for comments (article), requests for comments (user) and/or admin noticeboard (incident). If you restore the material again without a reliable source, I will opt for the RFC (article).  Three editors have removed the same material in the past month with you restoring it; it is already past third opinion. You are not pushing any particular source as reliable (yet), that lets out the RS noticeboard. Behaviour has not slipped far enough for it to be commented on by more than one person (yet) so no RFC/U. No actions have been taken that warrant immediate blocking, so no AN/I. We are probably skating around the edit warring board, though (although that is not thought of as dispute resolution so much as "STAHP IT!"...). 71.234.215.133 (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

-

Questions about Reliable Sources
"Three editors have removed the same material in the past month with you restoring it;"

I only see two editors who removed it: yourself and "Fat&Happy". I was working under the hypothesis you were "Fat&Happy" and had finally identified yourself by something other than a number. If there was a third editor, I will humbly stand corrected. However, without a third name, that would make you an unreliable source (jest intended).

Having read Identifying Reliable Sources, it appear primarily interested in the determination of facts and the veracity of the facts presented. The fact that the story of Play-Doh is in the movie is beyond question, unless you feel the links to clips I provided were faked. If you mean has a anthropologist done peer-reviewed research on whether the story has affected society, I will grant you I am unaware of this happening. My contention remains that numerous bloggers and reviewers have mentioned the Play-Doh story as a significant part of the movie. That is a verifiable fact, which I provided links to just a few. Being a television broadcaster myself, I have mentioned it on the air. Sorry, but I do not have a video of it to prove that I said it. You can verify the fact that I am a reporter in San Diego either through my own website ( http://americanindian.net ), my YouTube Channel ( http://www.youtube.com/user/cherokeephil/ ) which includes copies of many of my stories, or this following link to my most recent story for which there is a video available (this week: http://www.cbs8.com/category/155799/video-landing-page?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8811034 ). I will stand by the results of the review if more than just a few people respond. Phil Konstantin Phil Konstantin (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Philkon


 * The RFC I started lists all three. (There were actually four, but the fourth (first?) was in December.) It does not matter what hypothesis you were/are working under. What you think about other editors matters not a whit unless such thinking spills over into Wikipedia.


 * Wikipedia reports what the reliable sources says; we do not write those sources. We cannot speak from our own knowledge; there is no way for such knowledge to be independently verified. If you insist that the dialogue had a cultural impact, you must prove it with a reliable source.


 * Fact: a friend lost a portion of her house because of Play-Doh and stupidity. It was not a famous person, did not burn down a town, get new laws enacted, set any records in awarded settlements, and was not covered by reliable sources outside the immediate area. Even though it affected a dozen lives and was reported by local, reliable sources, it is trivial within the context of an encyclopedia article on Play-Doh.
 * Fact: Play-Doh was used in a climatic dialogue in a film. Stated that way, it is also trivial. See:
 * Editors need to show why any fact is important enough to include in the encyclopedia
 * Editors show how a fact is actually an important fact by citing reliable sources discussing the fact
 * Because they can use only reliable sources, editors must say what the reliable sources say
 * Example: going back to my friend, if the reliable sources only discussed how much it cost to repair the house, that would be all I could add to the article. It does not matter that I know the family was devastated to lose a 400-year-old table and a Colonial-era clock - I cannot prove it as I am not a reliable source.
 * Example: say you find a reputable toy-specialty publication that states sales of Play-Doh rose just after the film came out. That is also all the article here can say: sales rose after the film came out. The increase cannot be attributed to cultural impact, nostalgia, or little green men because we cannot prove it with a reliable source.
 * If reliable sources cannot be found, the fact does not belong in an article


 * Since you have read WP:RS you will have also read that news agencies can also be reliable sources. Have you checked any of the major newspapers? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Soviet submarine K-129 (1960), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phantom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

We choose to go to the Moon
Yes, the link is appropriate now. At the time I reverted, it was a red link. He created the link before the article.--Asher196 (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Apollo 16 map
I wouldn't mind you reverting my image in the Apollo 16 article back to the map if the map were not so poorly done. It has an uneditable caption at the top, a nearly redundant label with an arrow pointing at the site that is off center, yet another caption with almost the same words at the bottom, an unreadable index map at left, and a fairly blurry image of the moon from the earth. How about I come up with a better one from the Apollo 16 mapping camera or something similar? Also, I think the Apollo 14 shot adds some value to the article, and it's the only overview of the site in the article at that scale. Why not keep both? I found it interesting that A11 to A15 sites were scoped out by Lunar Orbiter, but 16 and 17 were photographed at high-res by previous Apollo missions. What aspect of Apollo 16 did you work on? Jstuby (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Apollo 16 landing site AS16-M-0440.jpg|thumb|405px|What do you think?]]

Using both pictures would be OK. The Apollo 14 photo alone, while nice quality, did little to help locate the landing area except for lunaphiles or experts. The combination you included in your comments is an improvement. The average Wikipedia user (if there is such a thing) would benefit from know where the landing site is located, and seeing it in a way that could be used easily. I ran computers in the Real Time Computer Complex (RTCC) which is located directly below the Mission Operations Control Room (the room you always see on TV) at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. The RTCC computers were the ones that ran the missions from Houston's end. I was at JSC from Apollo 16 through the end of Skylab. Later I covered parts of the space program as a reporter/author. You can see details in the KSC and article links below. http://americanindian.net/ksc.html http://americanindian.net/articles.html

Phil Konstantin (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Phil

Revert on Poway, California
I reverted my edit that removed the mention of Blink-182 from the history article. I regret this more than in last year. TheGGoose (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in
Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
 * When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in
Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
 * When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Would welcome your thoughts about the panorama photo on the article's talkpage. Shearonink (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Philkon. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page California Highway Patrol, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. - wolf  01:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I worked for the CHP 14 years ago. I'm did not correct this error for any reason other than it being an error. I did not correct this error because of something I knew from 14 years ago. I contacted the CHP directly to see if the matter in question was correct. Representatives of the CHP said the information was incorrect. I did not base my correction of the material based on my own knowledge. I was not "advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything". I was correcting a mistake. I did propose a change on both the page in question, and on the page of the person who added the inaccurate information. Nobody responded to either. I did not correct a matter of controversy, but a simple matter of facts. Phil Konstantin (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that you worked there (it's in your BLP), and that you contacted CHP to confirm whether or not the information was correct. But we cannot accept that as a reason to change content, as it falls under original research. And this is one reasons why this is a COI; because of your personal connection with the subject led you to make that edit. This is why we prefer editors with a potential COI post to the article talk page when they feel there is a problem with the article. If you don't get a response, you can always try the associated WikiProject (in this case; WikiProject Law Enforcement), or WP:AN. Thanks - wolf  03:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, I have no problem with that. Are you going to change it back to the factually inaccurate information because I was the one who corrected it? If you do, I won't change it again. Phil Konstantin (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reverted because the edit was both a coi and unsupported/wp:or. But along with your edit summary, I can take a further look at the content, what sources are there and what other sources might be available. - wolf  22:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Do what I did, call the CHP headquarters directly and ask them - https://www.chp.ca.gov/find-an-office/headquarters/deputy-commissioner/office-of-community-outreach-and-media-relations - Office of Community Outreach and Media Relations - CHP Headquarters Phone: (916) 843-3210 Address: 601 N. 7th St, Sacramento, CA 95811 ​​​Email: comr@chp.ca.gov You won't find any documentation which says "Captains control Divisions", because the CHP does not list things they do not do. So far, the person who made the original change has not cited their source, despite being asked to. Shouldn't their addition be deleted for general principles because they made a change without providing a verifiable source?


 * Here is the official CHP Rank Structure for one of their online forms. You will note the term "Head of a division within the department" does n ot apear on this document. (https://www.chp.ca.gov/CHPCareersSite/Documents/Cadet%20Applicant%20Study%20Guide.pdf)
 * Rank Structure. Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Chief, Assistant Chief, Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant, Officer
 * Phil Konstantin (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't "do what you did and call CHP" for the info. It would still be considered WP:OR. It's hearsay and useless for our needs. Content must be supported by WP:RS, added per WP:CITE. I'll take a look at the links you've included here and see if they're useful. If not, I'll hunt around and see if I can find a source that will serve our needs. - wolf  03:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the original edit which had been added content incorrectly. There was no source attached or even an edit summary to explain the addition. As such, it has now been removed. The other editor, "" has been notified that their edit was removed and, of the policies & guidelines that were violated. This issue is, I believe, now resolved. If you need future assistance with anything, I try to help when I can, but you would be better served contacting the Help Desk. Happy editing - wolf  06:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk page post
You attempted to contact an editor about an issue (noted above, involving the CHP article), but you posted your comment to their user page instead of their user talk page. This has since been corrected. An editors user page is typically not used for discussions. When contacting other editors, please post your comments to their user talk page, using the "new section" link at the top of the page, ensuring your post will have it's own sub-heading and will be placed at the bottom of the page. If contacting the editor about an article, preferred practice is to use the article talk page instead, and ensure that you notify by them using a "ping" template. In all instances, ensure that you sign all your posts by adding four tildes ( ~ ) to the end of your comment. Thank you - wolf  07:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and suggestions. Phil Konstantin (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Phil Konstantin, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png located above the edit window.

You have been told about this a number of times before. David Biddulph (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:COI
Consider this your last warning for WP:COI edits. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

-

How many other editors did you consult to determine if those lists were "useless"? At Rice, the list came from a student committee (FYI, of which I was not a participant in any way). Only about 20 students were included in the list the year I was included. I don't remember how many at SDSU were included.

Treaty of Moultrie Creek
Your book seems to say the Treaty of Moultrie Creek was signed on January 2, 1823, but other sources mention September. Am I confused or do you know what's going on? Haukur (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

That was a misprint. The treaty was proclaimed on January 2, 1824. Phil Konstantin (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

AfD result
Well, Phil, that AfD discussion is over and the end result is an article on your book with a redirect from Phil Konstantin. While I think that's a reasonable result, I was disappointed with some of the comments in that discussion and I think we still have some way to go to improve our culture at articles for deletion. It should not be a forum for taking potshots at article subjects. Haukur (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. All along I have said if a genuine consensus was reached about an article about me not meeting Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, based on an accurate reporting of what I have actually done or accomplished, then I would not object. It was the arbitrariness of some of the discussion which frustrated me. Some of those who objected to the article's inclusion were polite in their reasoning. Others seemed to take it personally or seemed to have some sort of an agenda. That is just my opinion. There are quite a few people in the world who have made significant contributions to society, without doing it with lots of media reporting on it in such a way that it could be easily confirmed from someone's computer somewhere else in the world.

That being said, about once a month, I receive spam e-mail from companies which offer to create a Wikipedia article about someone for a price. I chuckled at the first of these since there already was an article about me. These offers usually cost several hundred dollars. Since I immediately delete them as the spam they are, I do not know if they create factual articles, or fake data in order to meet Wikipedia standards. So, I do understand some skepticism among sincere Wikipedia editors.

I know that lots of the material which appeared in the article about me came from photos of documents which I had posted on my personal websites since my first website was created in 1996. Without bragging, I can say that I have been fairly well known in several different communities (American Indian, etc.). And, I was on San Diego radio and TV almost daily for 26 years. Even though I retired from law enforcement in 2005, and broadcasting in 2016, I still get recognized in public as "Officer Phil". So, it would have been easy for members of any of these groups to find the material about me which has appeared over the years. While I do not know if anyone is actually faking documents in order to get a Wikipedia article, it does seem like a lot of effort, with very little return. But, alas, some promoters will do inappropriate things. Phil Konstantin (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC) Phil Konstantin


 * Yes, that's pretty much it. There are some bad apples out there and they spoil it for everyone else – creating an atmosphere where we have to take everything skeptically. But we should still try to do so without getting personal or unpleasant. Haukur (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

siyo
Greetings my brother, I am so ecstatic to meet you. Thank you for your response on WP:IPNA. Sometimes it feels like I am alone here and, while your words of your experience are disturbing, it is a relief to find someone who understands what our ancestors have faced and what we still face today, albeit subtly. I have done extensive work in modifying articles on the Cherokee people here. I have expanded the template linking the history, events, people and landmarks associated with our shared ancestry. I will continue to edit and safeguard these articles with all that I am. The one area that still remains and I am hoping you may be able to assist me with is the actual Cherokee Wikipedia. We need fluent speakers and writers in a bad way. I see where we can make the Cherokee Wikipedia into something remarkable and an example to base other American Indian Wikipedia's on. At some point there was substantial activity on the Wikipedia but it has since dwindled to myself and a few others who just don't want the wiki to die out and so we keep it active. Is there anything we can do to entice help or assistance from the Nation? I view this as a project to preserve the culture and language of the Cherokee. Even if we have to start over and revamp the entire wiki it will be beneficial to all Cherokee to do this.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC) - - - -

Alas, the non-Cherokees, and often the non-Indians, keep returning and restoring some of the European-centric writings on Wikipedia. Years ago, I finally gave up on the "Native American" references because the non-American Indians kept coming back and changing it. I still have problems with the folks who insist the official Cherokee Nation with its headquarters in Tahlequah is called the "Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma". This is despite that name NOT appearing on any official CN material, or websites.

Unfortunately, the number of Cherokee speakers & writers are few and far between outside of northeastern Oklahoma, and the Cherokee Boundary area of North Carolina. I don't speak or wrote much Cherokee since I have almost nobody to practice with.

Finally, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, their "Conflict of Interest" rules can make it very hard for Cherokees to edit things about Cherokees. I've had many of my edits questioned. Nobody is supposed to edit material about themselves, either. Thus none of the three federally recognized tribes are supposed to be involved in material about themselves.

If you are Cherokee, you might check in with one of the 25 Cherokee satellite communities around the country. Phil Phil Konstantin (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am very leery of who I trust. Many Cherokee don't "look" Cherokee and still others who claim to be Cherokee have no basis of their claim except that a relative told them. I have been to Tahlequah on multiple occasions and discussed topics with citizens in the area and at the CHC. I have even enrolled in the language learning programs there. I was in Oklahoma for a month researching historical documents and a family heritage I didn't even know about as I lived in Italy for most of my childhood. I don't claim to be Cherokee, per se, even with documentation that I was born there and my mothers family being registered. Just as I don't claim to be a Jew though my father was predominantly Jewish. I simply claim Cherokee heritage through my mother and I will work tirelessly to support and defend that heritage. It is the least I can do to honor my ancestors.Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Alexsolis.jpg


The file File:Alexsolis.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned and redundant to File:AlexSolisByPhilKonstantin.jpg at Commons"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HouseBlastertalk 08:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)