User talk:Smallchief

Good work on this article. Thanks for contributing it.

reverted my edit at Lewis Hector Garrard, insisting that Garrard wrote the "only" eyewitness account of the trials after the Taos Revolt. I had gone with "an eyewitness account" instead. Are you sure of that? Do you know what James Beckwourth wrote (dictated) on the subject? Is it covered in Kit Carson's autobiography? Was there an "official" US Army report? I went with "an" because it seems safe. If you are clear that it was the "only", then so be it, but I am looking. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, this site [2] states, "The most complete account of the events of that fateful day comes from Lewis H. Garrard's book, Wah To Yah and The Taos Trail." 'The most complete account" is, in my opinion, quite a bit different from "the only account."

My reference (click on footnote) was the University of Oklahoma Press which said Garrard's was the "only eyewitness account." That may not be correct, but that's what my source said. Perhaps your suggestion that Garrards's is "the most complete account" is at present the better wording for the article -- although I might come back to "only eye-witness account" later if I research this subject more.

I don't like saying "an eyewitness account" because that implies there are other eye-witness accounts of the Taos trials that are equally good, reliable, and complete. I don't think there are, although something might be buried in the National Archives.

This issue of sourcing for Wikipedia is interesting. I have been in discussions with people who used what I considered unreliable sources in articles, but I was told (in essence) that sourcing is more important than accuracy. You may be familiar with the story of the fellow who learned from his Wikipedia article that he had died. When to tried to correct the article, he was told he couldn't because the article's source said he had died. Cheers. Smallchief (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been sent to you requesting that you respond to whether or not you are still an active member of Here By following the instructions.

--Dcheagle 09:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Ollokot is a redlink. It would be good if you-- or someone -- could create an article for him. I'm afraid I don't have the time, but I do think it's worth doing and would be glad to at least help with a bit of copyediting or something. Montanabw^(talk) 19:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've created an article for Ollokot and hopefully it will be approved and posted soon. Please feel free to improve and add to the article. Smallchief (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple tweaks. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 23:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Cottonwood, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's
  grading scheme
  to see how you can improve the article.
• You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to
  Articles for Creation
  .
• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For fantastic work creating Battle of Cottonwood which I just cleared through AfC. But it could have been awarded for any of dozens of other excellent articles, I think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I add that I took the liberty of adding a photo of Chief Joseph - I hope I have the caption right - to the article, it felt fitting.

I would also be happy to nominate the article for a DYK ("Did You Know?") if you'd like that, or of course you can nominate yourself. The DYK needs a "hook" of under 200 characters (not words), and the hook must be in the article and be attached directly to an inline citation (would need a bit of tweaking to do that), and within 5 days of the article's being created. Could also use the photo, seems best with DYKs. Something along the lines of 'Did you know ... that Chief Joseph (pictured) and his Nez Perce warriors brushed aside the US Army at the Battle of Cottonwood?' perhaps? Entirely up to you - let me know what you'd like. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words (and the barnstar). perhaps the text (if not too long for a DYK) could be. "Chief Joseph (pictured) and his warriors defeated the U.S. army in 1877 at the Battle of Cottonwood as the Nez Perce began their 1,400 mile (2,300 km.) fighting retreat." I could add the "1,400 mile fighting retreat" language to the article and reference if if that would be better. Thanks again. Smallchief (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's 146 characters, which is fine for a DYK, so as soon as you've updated the wording and the citation, I'll propose it. The guys at DYK are expert at improving DYK hooks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Smallchief (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made the nomination at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_January_12. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was one who wrote the original Verendrye journey. Sorry for the delay - I was off line. What do you think of moving the journey to a separate article? Since we are not sure that the Chevalier was Louis-Joseph it is over-confident to put the journey under his name. Separation would give Louis-Joseph a clean biography and place all the doubts in another place. Who does Smurr think the Chevalier was? Is the business about the Larmie Mountains Smurr's 'new theory'? If so it should be footnoted as such. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article might lend itself to being split into a Louis-Joseph article and a journey article. Perhaps other Wikipedians might have an opinion on this?

To answer your question, it seemed to me that the evidence tilted toward Louis-Joseph as the Chevalier -- but I might be persuaded otherwise as this wasn't my principal area of interest. I don't recall that Smurr addressed the issue of the Chevalier. Nor did I think the Smurr theory was as "new" as he claimed it was.

Re the Laramie mountains, in my first mention in the article of the Laramies I footnoted Smith, p. 108-109, 127. I don't have the Smith book right now to verify that footnote, but the Laramies are also mentioned by Smurr (p. 55) and, more prominently, by DeLand in 1914 (p. 242 and other pages). I'll add Deland as a footnote to my second mention of the Laramies and perhaps you might wish to verify Smith's mention of them -- if you have the book available.

There's enough speculation about the Verendrye route to write more extensively about the journey. My own semi-formed theory (which I didn't include in the article because it would be "original research" and verboten by Wikipedia) is that most of the Verendrye routes proposed by scholars are improbably short. Verendrye spent a year on the road. To propose, as many scholars have, that he never got beyond the Black Hills or the boundaries of the Dakotas requires that we believe that Verendrye and the Indians he met moved very slowly and in a very restricted area. To the contrary, it seems to me that Verendrye ranged widely, met many different Indian tribes, and viewed both the Laramies and the Big Horns (almost certainly the Big Horns). He was looking for the South Sea (the Pacific Ocean) and that implies that he would have gone as far west and south as possible in searching for it.

My semi-formed theory that Verendrye ranged widely is bolstered by the fact that Verendrye's "People of the Bow" had extensive knowledge of the Spanish in New Mexico. That points toward them being the Pawnee who lived in Nebraska but might have ranged as far west as Wyoming and Colorado. We know that the Pawnee had contacts with the Spanish at this time.

The powerful "Snakes" who were the enemies of the People of the Bow were almost certainly Shoshoni or Comanche -- the two peoples being nearly identical in language and culture in the early 18th century. The Comanche were known, at this time, to be attacking other Indian tribes, including the Pawnee, to capture slaves to sell to the Spanish in New Mexico. That makes the Comanche/Shoshoni a logical enemy for the Pawnee and other tribes to attack.

Best wishes. Smallchief (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the DYK nomination for this article, and find it meets all of the criteria. I do have a question about one reference, which I have left at the nomination page. If you could address that, it would be most appreciated. Thanks, Resolute 01:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I've changed the reference to one that makes explicit mention of the Nez Perce flight to Canada. (Note however that the distance the Nez Perce traveled is estimated differently by different sources. I've said 1400 miles, but estimates vary from 1,300 to 1,700 miles.) Smallchief (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Fizzle (Montana), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's
  grading scheme
  to see how you can improve the article.
• You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to
  Articles for Creation
  .
• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

A412 (Talk * C) 20:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the DYK! Have you joined WikiProject Montana yet? You're invited! Montanabw^(talk) 00:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, I knew it was main page-worthy! Good work. Have fun with the Montana people. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nez Perce in Yellowstone Park, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's
  grading scheme
  to see how you can improve the article.
• You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to
  Articles for Creation
  .
• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SmallChief, I think you're really too expert to need to go through the alarmingly backlogged AfC process (dang, worse than a river jammed by them ole beavers and a herd of greenhorn lumberjacks. or whatever). Just one minor thing - I left a note on the talk page - the article would be nicer with a separate Bibliography so that all the inline citations refer to it, rather than one citation depending on an earlier one (which after all might get chopped about sometime). Thanks (and good writing as usual) Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't know how to go around the approval process. Can you tell me how? Your suggestion of adding a bibliography is a good one. I'll do that. Smallchief (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's nothing to it. You just create a redlink like Nez Perce in Lower Manhattan in any article (could be your sandbox even), press Preview, and you'll see the page with the redlink. Click the redlink, and it asks if you want to create the new page. You can then paste in your text, or edit directly. Of course it's best to have the page pretty much in order to avoid the deletion wolves of Yellowstone eating the article before it's big enough to walk without its mommy... which you can do by starting it off as a child page in your userspace, with a redlink like /Nez Perce wherever on your user page. Then you can move the page when it's ready. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smallchief, if you are willing to do a bit of work on the article (of which I will help) I'll help you get this one nominated for

I'd be delighted to have your suggestions. I'll be adding a bibliography today after a breather. I just had a DYK a few days ago on another article I wrote on the Nez Perce, so another one so soon might not be approved. However, if you wish to nominate something from this article, I would be pleased. Smallchief (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smallchief, no limit on DYKs, every article and editor on their own. This one will be approved. I've started adding some notes on the talk page. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smallchief, I think I got most of what needed done to get Nez Perce in Yellowstone Park ready for DYK. I made some suggested hooks on the talk page. Which one do you prefer? Let me know and I'll get this article nominated for you. Again good job getting this one started. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page and repeat here in case you don't see it, any of the three formulations you proposed are fine with me. This Nez Perce stuff is really interesting. I'll move along now to the Battle of Canyon Creek which needs some work -- and I'm sure you could also improve it. Smallchief (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination is done: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Nez_Perce_in_Yellowstone_Park. I'll keep an eye on Canyon Creek as you work on it. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of the most famous and infamous people of the American Old West 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most famous and infamous people of the American Old West until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smallchief, I just saw how

Thanks for your comments and insight. I prefer "Foo Indians" to "Foo people" because Foo Indians is more informative, tipping the reader off that we're talking about a people in the Americas. I think I'll change the article's name back to the original "Taovaya Indians." One reason for doing that is because, looking at the article's history, "Taovaya Indians" got about 3 times the readership that "Taovaya" does. And I do like readers! Smallchief (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since Wikipedia won't let me change the name to "Taovaya Indians" (for reasons unclear to me) I'll stick to "Taovaya people" Fate, perhaps. Smallchief (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it wouldn't let me move it either - too many edits and changed to the original. C'est la vie. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

This is a long and frequently reoccurring discussion. However, I tend to be among those who favor "people-centered" terms. And there is a tribe-by-tribe issue: the word "Indian" is considered offensive by some Native people, whereas others find "Native American" to be too academic and condescending. I even know some folks who insist on being called "Native" and yet have run across stuff stating others find that word condescending. So short of documenting what people want you to call them (usually the best approach when possible) on a case by case basis, saying "people" makes the important point -- people of different ethnicities are still people. Montanabw^(talk) 00:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

=

First of all, excellent job with the expansion in the Operations Against the Sioux in North Dakota campaign series of articles. I have a question on Battle of Whitestone Hill#Battle (and one instance in Battle of Whitestone Hill#Aftermath). Should the instances of "Sibley" in those sections actually be "Sully"? I don't have access to the references to check… I hope you're planning to expand Battle of Killdeer Mountain as well. Also, I saw your "Help!" edit summary at Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge last week – I hope that my change was in line with what you were envisioning. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made a mistake of saying "Sibley" when I meant "Sully" on several occasions. I think those errors have been corrected. Thanks for the compliments. I just finished a rewrite of the Battle of Killdeer Mountain. I'm sure the article could still use some sharp editing skills. Smallchief (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want any articles, just give the details and I'll send them to you. Best, Fanzine999 (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I may take you up on that. I never know what I will research next. Cheers. Smallchief (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email [email protected] your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check
  applications page
  to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Smallchief-- I've been working on assessment with DThomsen8, and want to say thanks for all your contributions! I realize that Fetterman Fight is probably a B or better; however, I'm just doing Stub/Start/C class assessments for now, in order to keep moving through the unrated items. (Considered asking you to try your hand at some B-class assessments, but I don't want to distract you from creating and improving articles, which is more important ...) Djembayz (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I noticed you had edited and evaluated several articles I worked on. It's a pleasure to see such professionalism. Smallchief 00:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Awarded to content creator Smallchief in recognition of an accomplished body of work that, on examination, I find both impressive and intimidating. On behalf of those who benefit from your efforts in the past, present and future, I salute you as a notable Wikipedian! Jusdafax 19:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

Thanks. The recognition is much appreciated. Smallchief 03:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. I find very little to dislike in your work. I started with Fetterman Fight and moved on from there. I have visited the site in Wyoming, by the way, and think the description of the actions to be accurate and comprehensive. Don't be too discouraged at the current lack of recognition... as the years go by, it will dawn on editors how much quality material you have written here. Jusdafax 03:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 5 December 2012 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smallchief-- I see that you are doing some editing at Battle of Dagu Forts. I posted a question on the Talk Page, but will ask you directly, just in case: Jane E. Elliott, Some Did It for Civilisation, Some Did It for Their Country : A Revised View of the Boxer War (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2002) makes the argument that western armies at the time and western historians have seriously neglected the Battle of the Dagu Forts, some even denying that it even took place. Would you as someone more knowledgable like to evaluate this claim and perhaps work it into this article? The Google book is at Jane Elliot Some Did it For Civilisation Cheers in any case ch (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CH. Looking at your credentials on China, they're more impressive than mine. However, I have been a long time collector of material on the Boxer Rebellion, and I'm familiar with Elliot's book -- although it's been several years since I looked at it. As I recall, she was very laudatory about the Chinese performance at the Battle of the Dagu Forts. And looking at the Boxer Rebellion article, I see that the battle gets no mention (or at least I didn't find a mention of it) but it should. Because, if I recall correctly, it was the attack on the Dagu Forts that definitively made up the Dowager's mind to support the Boxers. I'll refresh my memory and add a sentence or two in the Boxer Rebellion article regarding the Battle of the Dagu Forts -- or if you wish, you can do it. Smallchief

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

Djembayz (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks, Djembayz. I didn't even know there was such a thing as a Wikipedia gift. I'm proud to be a wikipedian. I like to write and I decided a couple of years ago that I get more gratification -- and, importantly, more readership -- by writing on Wikipedia than by writing articles and books. I appreciate the recognition -- and I hope I get a T-shirt, cause I love T-shirts with a message that tells who you are, but doesn't make people angry.Smallchief

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
	Hi Smallchief! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply ]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gareth Porter may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ].<ref>[http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/239/2391202002C.pdf Transcript]</ref> Author [[William Shawcross commented that Porter's and his co-author's "apparent faith in Khmer Rouge

Thanks,

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for all the work you've put in writing Plains Indian and Aridoamerica cultural articles! Uyvsdi (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image placement

Hi Smallchief. Just FYI, images are not supposed to be placed opposite other images or infoboxes in such a way that they squeeze the text between them or indent headings. See various pages

Frankly, I think you're pettifogging. Who is the collective "we" you're citing? I am also a member of Wikipedia entitled to utilize some judgement as to the sizing and placement of photographs and the organization of articles. I've done it hundreds of times and I've never had a complaint before, so you are unique in that respect. I suggest you take this issue to higher authority, whoever or whatever that may be. In the meantime, I'm going to focus my time and effort on trying to produce accurate, authoritative, and interesting articles for wikipedia, which I thought was the purpose of this activity. Smallchief (talk 21:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. I'm visually disabled and have visually disabled friends. I have been correcting this issue for years and most editors get it and stop doing things that make Wikipedia harder to use for the visually disabled. Jerk.

talk) 22:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Smallchief. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

Thank you for your contributions to women's football/soccer articles. I thought I'd let you know about the Women's Football/Soccer Task Force ( WP:WOSO), a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's football/soccer. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page . Thanks!

Hmlarson (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main

• I'll check it out and get back to you. Smallchief (talk 19:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ok,I've worked my way through the Vietam War article and the Vietnamese Boat People article. (By the way, I havent finished working on the latter sections of the present unsourced and unreliable boat people article yet). The Vietnam war article doesent say that 3.0 million "boat people" fled. It says that "over 3 million Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians fled, many of whom were Boat people." So, there's no obvious inconsistency there with giving the numbers of boat people at 800,000.

• • "Boat People" is often used in the generic sense to refer to all the Vietnamese who were resettled worldwide after 1975. However, the text of the Vietnamese Boat People article which I am in the process of revising refers only to those Vietnamese who left Vietnam by boat -- not Cambodians, Laotians, or the 40,000 or so Vietnamese who fled overland to Thailand. Nor does the term Boat People apply to the 135,000 Vietnamese who were evacuated during the Fall of Saigon in 1975. Nor does the term boat people apply to the nearly 500,000 who left Vietnam to travel directly to the US after 1979 under the Orderly Departure Program. Nor does the term boat people refer to the 250,000 Vietnamese who fled overland to China. In other words, the term "Vietnamese boat people" in this article applies only those Vietnamese who left Vietnam by boat and turned up on the shores of other Southeast Asian countries or Hong Kong. That point needs clarifying in the article -- which I will endeavor to do.

• • My source for statistics used in the Vietnamese Boat People article is the UNHCR's report: "The State of the World's Refugees: 50 Years of Humanitarian Action" This is the most complete and credible source for international statistics concerning the "boat people" as the term is used in the restrictive sense I have explained above.

• • I'll hopefully clear up the statistical maze as I work through the Vietnamese Boat People article. I think, perhaps, that a mention is needed in the lead to the Vietnamese Boat People article that the term "boat people" is often loosely applied to all Vietnamese who ended up resettled in the US and elsewhere -- but that this article is only about those Vietnamese who left Vietnam by boat. Smallchief (talk 20:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, it might be better to change the title of the article "Vietnamese Boat People" to "Vietnamese Refugees" and cover the whole spectrum of the subject. "Vietnamese Boat People" could be redirected to "Vietnamese Refugees" Smallchief (talk 20:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Keep up the good work, then.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I was just reading the Indian Wars section of the Thomas Moonlight article, and I noticed some discrepancies between that information and what I just read yesterday in "Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors" by Stephen E. Ambrose. According to the author, Moonlight was actually out trying to fight Indians in late May 1865 (he left Fort Laramie, along with most of his cavalry, because he was trying to respond to attacks by the Cheyenne and some Sioux on the Oregon Trail around that time). He didn't end up finding any Indians, although he marched all the way to the Wind River. While he was gone, Two Face and Blackfoot brought Mrs. Eubanks to Fort Laramie as a sign of peace. She claimed she had been raped continuously by the Cheyenne, then bought by Blackfoot (who raped her) who then sold her to Two Face (who of course also raped her). The same morning of the day they brought her to the fort, she claimed that a "whole horde of Sioux" raped her. The (drunk) temporary commander at Fort Laramie immediately ordered Two Face and Blackfoot to be hanged with iron balls attached to their legs. A soldier guarded the bodies (so they couldn't be taken down) until the legs finally rotted enough that the iron balls caused them to fall off.

I just paraphrased what Ambrose wrote. See pgs 155--156 for the details.

I'm no historian, but I notice a few differences. One is that Moonlight wasn't around when Two Face and Blackfoot were hanged. Another is the spelling of Eubanks, and that, from the sounds of her "testimony", she actually wanted to the Indians to be hanged. I just wanted to call this to your attention, in case you want to edit the section. Thanks

Michael Scott Bell (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I'll see if I can find my copy of Ambrose and check what he says against the present text. I recall when I was writing this that the stories of this incident were incompatible. I'll see if I can straighten out the text, or at least note that there is disagreement among sources. Smallchief (talk 11:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no experience editing Wiki so rather than try I thought I would approach you as you seem to be the author of the content in question. Regarding Chomsky's opinion that Ponchaud's Cambodia: Year Zero was "'worth reading' but unreliable", this seems intentionally deceitful on your part. Chomsky said the book was "serious and worth reading", true. But as far as him saying it was unreliable Chomsky noted multiple inaccuracies in the book which Ponchaud corrected for the American publication. His opinion was it was serious and worth reading. That it was unreliable is fact since corrections were made when inaccuracies were pointed out by Chomsky.

Also you use the quote "great care" from Chomsky and Herman's book regarding Ponchaud's refugee sources. They were simply reiterating the very same point Ponchaud made in the book and thus this quote seems rather pointless, unless your sole intention is to smear Chomsky by creating a false impression though selective, out of context quoting.

http://www.chomsky.info/letters/20100117.htm

Hensah 17:17, 24 March 2014 (EST)

You've posted Chomsky's rebuttal to an article criticizing him. You might want to read a counter-rebuttal to Chomsky by Sophal Ear, a Cambodian-American scholar who has published extensively on the subject of the academic community and the Cambodian genocide.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/chomsky-and-the-khmer-rouge-the-observer/

You might be interested in hearing what Ponchaud had to say about Chomsky:

"Mr. Chomsky was of the opinion that Jean Lacouture had substantially distorted the evidence I had offered, and, considering my book to be 'serious and worth reading, as distinct from much of the commentary it has elicited,' he wrote me a personal letter on October 19, 1977, in which he drew my attention to the way it was being misused by antirevolutionary propagandists. He has made it my duty to 'stem the flood of lies' about Cambodia -- particularly, according to him, those propagated by Anthony Paul and John Barron in 'Murder of a Gentle Land.'"

In other words, if I read that correctly, Chomsky was telling Ponchaud to toe the ideological line, e.g. denial of the Cambodian genocide. Barron and Paul's book, by the way, was based on interviews with hundreds of Cambodian refugees and proved to be spot-on.

You are welcome to find a quote from Chomsky about Ponchaud which you believe is more representative of Chomsky's opinion of the book -- but let's not lose track of the important fact. Ponchaud, a man of the Left who initially welcomed the Khmer Rouge, was correct in his analysis of the character of the KR -- and Chomsky and the other doubters, deniers, nay-sayers, were wrong. Smallchief (talk 11:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From User Smallchief/Sandbox 7 (in article space) to User:Smallchief/Sandbox 7. Seemed like the thing to do.TheLongTone (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some random IP changed the figure used in Vietnam War casualties.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Smallchief. I'm on my way to the edit-warring noticeboard to report your latest edits at Gareth Porter, but I would rather not. Is there any reason why I should not? You just recently implemented a blind revert without addressing a single issue raised with your edits on the Talk page. Not good editing form at all. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that it was you who deleted material that was verifiable with good references and had been in the article for months or years without dispute. What you replaced it with was material favorable to Porter which was misleading and, in fact, inaccurate in some cases. My objective is to write and edit good and accurate articles -- not to promote a particular prejudice or point of view. Porter was wrong in the evidence he cited to justify his support and approval of the Khmer Rouge. He has admitted that himself. To whitewash his previous opinions of the Khmer Rouge, as you wish to do, would be contrary to truth and a disservice to Wikipedia. Porter is responsible for what he said publicly and in print.

The fact that Porter has recanted his previous views is important, admirable, and worthy of being included in the article. Why have you reverted that? Smallchief (talk 22:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding on the article Talk page; I've addressed the issues you've raised there.

I have not removed any properly referenced and accurately conveyed material, and I'm sure you well know that just because content survives "in the article for months or years", that is no guarantee that it is not in violation of Wikipedia policies. I'm glad to hear that it is not your intent to promote a particular prejudice or point of view, at least we are on the same page to that point. However, when you say "To whitewash his previous opinions of the Khmer Rouge, as you wish to do...", now you are just being nasty and untruthful, and I'll have to ask you to stop. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[[]]== Do you agree with these changes? == If you agree with them please add them or say you agree with them so I can add them. 209.236.86.201 (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the phrase "Indigenous languages of the Americas|linguistic factors" and I, given my limited knowledge of DNA, can agree -- although I believe the section would be more comprehensible and interesting if you referred to the origin and location of the "24,000 year old sample" which I would assume is the Mal'ta Buret people of Siberia. Others might appreciate knowing where this sample came from and understanding that the Mal'ta Buret connection might account for the "Caucasian" features of some early American Indians -- such as Kennewick man. The Mal'ta Buret connection, if in fact it is verified by additional research, may also pretty much put the much-ballyhooed Solutrean hypothesis in its grave.

Old data

Scientific evidence links indigenous Americans to Asian peoples, specifically eastern

New Data

• Regarding linguistic links between North Asian and North American indigenous peoples I would say that
  Dene-Yeniseian is in fact accepted by a sizeable minority by now. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You may be correct, it's perhaps the best evidence we have of a link. But see my latest comments on the article talk page. Smallchief (talk

Hello, Smallchief. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Adam Matthew account signup.
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

Hello Wikimedians!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• Elsevier
  - science and medicine journals and books
• Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
• Pelican Books - ebook monographs
• Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on

our partners page

. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--

The Wikipedia Library Team

.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the

Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list

.

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thank you for creating ☎ • ✎) 00:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply ]

Kit Carson

You weren't kidding about that article going downhill. I looked at it briefly during the infobox photo discussion, but didn't remember it being this bad. Poor sourcing, weak sentence structure...it's a mess. Intothatdarkness 21:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the additions to the

original research and need to be removed). Thanks again! It's nice to see the article grow!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you, Wikipedia Library Adam Matthew account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Fold3. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Fold3 account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information.
• 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 me 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.

Thank you,

Gamaliel (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Smallchief. I'm getting in touch in hopes you can direct me somewhere concerning the Wiki article about Yvette Pierpaoli. She was a friend of my wife's 30 years ago in Thailand during the refugee crisis there. In her Wiki article, there's a footnote about an unpublished English translation of her memoir. If I'm reading the history correctly, you added that footnote. So, I'm wondering if you might be able to point me somewhere to find that English translation. Any help you could provide would be much appreciated! Thanks. Writer128 (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Writer. I'll have to consult the person who had this book translated to see if I can get you a copy. He had some hopes of having it published, so I don't know whether he will release a copy. Meanwhile, the French original of the book used to be available, and maybe still is, on Amazon. I'll get back to you on this. Smallchief (talk 18:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help, Smallchief. And sorry for the late acknowledgment--just saw your reply now. We'll have a look on Amazon, but we're not very good at French. Writer128 (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Smallchief. Believe it or not, I only just now saw your message of last October offering the English translation of the Pierpaoli book. If you're still willing and able, I'd love to see it, and will abide by the copyright restrictions--no commercial use or reproduction. It will be just to read ourselves and remember her by. My email address is [email protected]. Again, thank you for your reply and willingness to provide it. Writer128 (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Smallchief, you are hereby invited to join the Military history WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, theory, and practice. You can add your name to the list of members, browse our showcase, train at the Academy, weigh in at current discussions, read the news, or find an open task. We hope you will join us! Anotherclown (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to argue with someone who doesn't think you can have peer reviewed evidence for this. You probably didn't notice, but he outed another editor on my talk page (now oversighted). That was the 3rd time he outed the same editor, with blocks each time (including I see this time). Thanks for your edits. I just found "On The Inferred Age And Origin Of Lithic Bi-Points From The Eastern Seaboard And Their Relevance To The Pleistocene Peopling Of North America"[3]:

"After several years of multidisciplinary examination, it is now clear that the proposal that Solutrean hunter-gatherers crossed the Atlantic Ocean during the Pleistocene (Stanford and Bradley 2012; see also Bradley and Stanford 2004, 2006; Collins 2012; Stanford and Bradley 2000) is not currently supported in any scientific field (Bamforth 2013; Dulik et al. 2012; Eren et al. 2013, 2014; Eriksson et al. 2012; Fiedel 2012; Goebel et al. 2008; Haynes 2013; Kashani et al. 2012; Lepper 2013a, 2013b; Morrow 2014; O’Brien et al. 2014a, 2014b; O’Rourke and Raff 2010; Raff and Bolnick 2014; Raghavan 2013; Rasmussen et al. 2014; Shott 2005a, 2005b; Straus 2000; Straus et al. 2005; Surovell 2014; Westley and Dix 2008; Whittaker 2013)".

And this looks like a brilliant source for several articles. Doug Weller talk 14:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"first postulate" - you wrote "The Solutrean Hypothesis was first postulated when, in 1974, a stone tool resembling Solutrean stone tools was" but Bradley and Stanford's first book was published in 1998, and the first sentence of the lead says 1998. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be clearer, this sentence should possibly read "The Solutrean Hypothesis was first postulated in 1998 based in part upon the 1970 discovery of a stone tool resembling Solutrean stone tools uncovered by a scallop dredge off the east coast of Virginia in an area that would have been been dry land prior to the rising sea levels of the Pleistocene Epoch." (The date of this discovery depending upon the sources is either 1970 or 1974, so take your pick.) Smallchief (talk 15:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I see you rephrased this point better than I had done. Thanks. Smallchief (talk 15:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smallchief (talk 15:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the stats (completely out of order), you are entirely right. That's a shame. And a real shame for Wikipedia ! Best regards. --86.73.64.12 (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Smallchief,

• Yes, I see what you're about. Sechin Alto needs a separate article in English -- and Serro Cechin needs to be revised. Sorry for the revert. Smallchief (talk 21:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done already! Article Sechin Alto created (translated from es). Serro Cechin hasn't been revised yet. Eio-cos (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Smallchief, you reverted my edits to the Wagon Box Fight today for being unreferenced POV. I did reference them: Hyde, Red Cloud's Folks, p. 159 f. It is a quote from a historian who actually talked to Indian participants of the fight (other than ppl. like WW II author Stephen Ambrose...) which contradicts and thus balances the interpretation that the wagon Box Fight would have been a lopsided US victory. I want to take your deletion of my work as an opportunity to talk this over how to best present this important other interpretation. I believe that the decolonization of NA history must be reflected in Wikipedia articles. Instead of blocking such efforts, do you have an idea how to do it in a good way here? Best regards,

Lookoo (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my specific problems with your edits. In your first edit, you inserted "white settler" history instead of the more neutral term of historians. It wasn't white settlers who wrote histories used in this article. It was historians, most of them in the present day.

Your second edit, in the next para is "white historians". The implication is that "Indian historians" wrote different and inaccurate accounts -- and therefore you should mention what those different accounts say and reference them. I also object to the term "white," as if a "white historian" cannot attempt to be objective. Also, calling somebody's book "stupid" is a no-no.

Most of the next two paragraphs are unreferenced or repetitive. Doubts of claims of heavy Indian casualties had already been expressed in the article-- and what you put in here (unreferenced) about casualties repeats or contradicts what is written elsewhere in the article -- The point that most early accounts of the battle had vastly overestimated Indian casualties has already been made.

Your last paragraph quotes George Hyde. I'm familiar with Hyde and an admirer of his -- but he was opinionated and his opinion was not always right. It seems to me that this quote trivializes the war by making it appear that the Indians were only fighting because it was fun. I don't believe that. The war was a deadly serious business to them -- as witnessed by their persistence and near daily attacks on the soldiers in their country. In other words, in attempting to slant this article more toward the Indian side of the story, I think you have done the reverse with this quote -- which is only an opinion by a "white historian" -- the ilk of which you deride elsewhere.

I don't disagree with your apparent intention of trying to focus this article more on the Indian side of the story, but I think the article is already balanced. There's room for disagreement on that point. 150 years on, I think the Indians get a fair shake in the article as now written -- but there are always other points of view which may merit mention, providing that the sources are authoritative and credible.

Cheers. And keep on editing. Smallchief (talk 10:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply! You have some very good points here!

Coming back to the "folklore" part - the wagon box fight has been celebrated by this folklore as you know, and I still think it's reasonable to make the point that we're not talking about a universal folkore here but a decidedly partisan one - white settler folkore. When I inserted "white settler", I meant it to qualify the very next word in the text - "folklore". There is certainly also a native folkore take on this episode, and it's almost certainly quite different.

I agree with your deletion of the following "white historian" insertion. I certainly didn't infer though that Indian historians would have been wrong in coming to different conclusions.

The next two paragraphs aren't unreferenced as they are a block quote from Hyde's book, source given right there. I put them into inverted commas and added the source.

Hyde may have been a white historian, but he was the only one mentioned here who interviewed Indian participants, and his points that the Indians didn't consider this a defeat at all as they concluded that they had inflicted more fatalities than they had suffered and captured a great deal of lifestock is crucial in my view. As a little aside, as for Hyde calling Dodge's book "stupid" in passing, yes, that's opiniated and rude - but in fact very much justified, I don't want to waste your time going into specifics but it's in large part a racist, derisive piece of fantasy (e.g. all young Cheyennes do the Sun Dance as a rite of passage (nope), those who pass it all become Dog Soldiers (nope), those few that fail become Berdaches (nope), and it just goes on like this). I just think that if we delete that one about the Indians not considering it a defeat at all, isn't that indeed unbalanced?. How about reinserting the first paragraph of the Hyde quote and leaving the second one deleted?

Lookoo (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have time now to respond to you in detail. Obviously you are aware that many of the accounts of the battle are exaggerated -- so I leave it to you to take my comments into account in revising the article. I would probably call the results of the battle "inconclusive" as neither side seemed to win much of anything, although the war of attrition was being won by the Indians. Smallchief (talk 22:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a nightmare to maintain. I appreciate you joining in. I am happy to discuss any aspect but where to start. The article is about weaving which is now all about air-jet and water jet looms which we have not touched yet. We have sections to add on weaving patterns and artificial fibres! We have input from the hobby sector and have to maintain a balanced narrative that will satisfy the ´average' reader. In a sense we are a top level article that will direct the reader to other more detailed articles

In 2011 and 2014 we floated sections that were becoming over dominant etc., which I suggest is the way forward. In preparing for that I rarely delete- but comment out text so it can be transferred easily. I do zap bad formattting and out of context photos. I hope you see what I am doing. At the moment I am trying to maintain the integrity of the history section from Sumerians to recent post shuttle looms- and will then attempt a prècis to shorten it- I am concerned that the Andean civilisation do need a higher profile (from the cultural POV) but can't think of the best way to do this. Suggestions?

I will finish my edit shortly then we can discuss individual aspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 10:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withhold judgement briefly -- but I don't in general favor deleting material unless the subject is adequately covered in another article. This article is unbalanced. More attention in your formulation is given to Huguenot weavers in England in the 18th century than is given the whole 11,000 year history of weaving in the Americas, especially the Andean civilizations in which weaving was a major art form.Smallchief (talk 10:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I think you added this to the wrong county. McDowell County is right down there though. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The information in the article was correct, but I said Harlan instead of McDowell country; and made the same mistake in the footnote was mistaken. I fixed it. Smallchief (talk 01:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet despite it's poverty, McDowell County is breathtakingly beautiful. Have a look at the photos I added to Iaeger, West Virginia and to Davy, West Virginia. I added an edit a while back to Cleveland, Mississippi, where Bobby Kennedy compared the poverty in the Delta to West Virginia's. Yet even in Leflore County, Mississippi, which has the highest level of child poverty in the United States, there is unbelievable beauty. I took this photo there. All the best. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful photos. Smallchief (talk 09:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why the source doesn't support the content? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The source you cite doesn't say that Trump's crowd was 25 percent of other inaugurations -- and to compute that number would be misleading unless you define the time period of the inaugurations you're talking about. Nor does the source define the size of the crowd at Trump's inauguration which makes any such calculation speculative. Smallchief (talk 00:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that there is some unclarity there. I will attempt to fix that. Thanks. Scott P. (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source you might use: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/20/us/politics/trump-inauguration-crowd.html It states that Trump's crowd is about one-third that of Obama's in 2009. Smallchief (talk 00:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent edits on the ethnic origin in the Xavante, Karitiana, and Paiter articles, the information is very interesting. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have nominated

One problem. Sabinoso is in New Mexico -- not Arizona. Smallchief (talk 00:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sabinoso Wilderness, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 16,030 acres (6,490 ha) of Federal land in New Mexico's Sabinoso Wilderness are inaccessible without trespassing, because they are entirely enclosed in privately-owned property? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sabinoso Wilderness. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sabinoso Wilderness), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Inca-Caranqui, Smallchief!

Wikipedia editor Winged Blades of Godric just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

That's a good job!cheers!

To reply, leave a comment on Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.

Learn more about

Winged Blades ^Godric 11:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Rumicucho, Smallchief!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This looks to be a really well-constructed article, and I would recommend you to consider putting it forward for

WP:DYK

.

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about

Nick Moyes (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Pambamarca Fortress Complex, Smallchief!

Wikipedia editor Mduvekot just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks!

To reply, leave a comment on Mduvekot's

Learn more about

Smallchief, I just read your comment on the nomination page, and I can't tell whether you still wanted to pursue this nomination or to withdraw it. I hope the former, and if so I'll look into formatting the proposed hook properly, but if it is the latter, please let me know so I can take care of it. Thanks. I'm sorry the DYK instructions seemed so opaque. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead with the Did you know nomination. I appreciate your interest. Smallchief (talk 03:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of U.S. counties with longest life expectancy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that residents of three adjacent counties in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado have the longest life expectancy in the U.S.? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of U.S. counties with longest life expectancy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, List of U.S. counties with longest life expectancy), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And it continues. Have you read

WP:MULTI (you may have to find WP:MULTI after the page loads because of formatting on the page). Not only did you post the same thread in second talk page, you intentionally copied the discussion from one talk page to another. Allowing assists and minutes played is a guideline discussion and not specific to one article alone. The outcome of the discussion, should it change consensus, will affect more than just Morgan's article. Feel free to point back to the specific section there (although it will be archived in about a month, unless the discussion continues for longer than that) even though there are several links back to the footy talk page, but don't get yourself into trouble by copying the discussion and splitting it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

This tone can be perceived as aggressive, not constructive. Please review the policy

WP:CIVILITY and let's see if we can continue the discussion on the Alex Morgan talk page. Hmlarson (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Smallchief. You have new messages at Molestash's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Quick nit: in this edit, you didn't list which of Saegar's works you were referencing... was it "The Chaco Mission Frontier: The Guaycuruan Experience" that you referenced elsewhere? (Also, I think at least SOME reference to the deadliness of the raids is merited... modern people forget what raiding often entails. "Murder" might be the wrong word, but it's still close.)

Also as a total side note, I've been meaning to email Saegar himself for more than a year... I think he's like the only English-speaking expert on colonial Paraguay in the world. But since he's emeritus now I have no idea if he even bothers responding. SnowFire (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nit. I'm just beginning to edit this article, so have begun by deleting material which I thought was not neutral in tone. You're right that the Payagua raids were murderous, but as I read the history of the area, it wasn't only the Payagua and other Indians (I wish that term was still politically correct), who were guilty of murderous raids, but also the Spanish and Portuguese. Thus is seemed unfair to me to single out the Payagua for "murder" as if they were the only aggressors and bad guys. I'll try to get the right tone in this section and reference it.

I hope that Saeger responds to you. I'd be interested in hearing his critique of the various articles, some of which I'm contributing to, on the Guaycuru peoples. In addition to Saeger, I've also located an article by Barbara Ganson on the Evueví which is an alternate name for the Payagua. Smallchief (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I was a little skeptical of that value when I wrote the article, but that's what French says in the source cited. Of course, given the critique of his book later on in the article, I should perhaps have even more reason to doubt it.

Do you know of any good sources that give the larger size you added that we can use to support this new claim? Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've read French's book and I noticed that he described the legation quarter as 2 acres in size -- which is obviously incorrect. I've seen sources, none of which are at hand at the moment, which describe the Legation Quarter as one mile long and one-half mile wide or 320 acres. Conversely, there is also a map in the

Beijing Legation Quarter

article which has a one-half mile scale and by my eyeball on that map the Legation quarter was not quite that big, a rectangle about 4300 feet by 2300 feet or 225 acres, but with an appendage (the US Legation) which would add a few acres. I confirmed that size by another scaled map which is in "Goodbye to Old Peking", p. xxv.) Anyway, I felt safe in saying that the legation quarter was about 1 square kilometer in size, about 247 acres. (Am I guilty of the sin of "Original Research" here? I hope not.)

If you'd like to reference the area, it would be Letcher, John Seymour, edited by Jeans, Roger B. and Lyle, Katie Letcher (1998), Good-Bye to Old Peking: The Wartime Letters of U.S. Marine Captain John Seymour Letcher, 1937-1939, Athens: Ohio University Press, p. xxv. Smallchief (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment at the AfD. I had misread the article and thought it stated that all her international appearances were for junior teams in Olympic games qualifying. I have closed the AfD as keep accordingly. Sorry for the confusion. Fenix down (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I assumed you didn't really mean to put an article called sandbox in mainspace, so I've taken the liberty of moving it to User:Smallchief/Manso River. Hope that's OK with you, cheers and happy editing. ϢereSpielChequers 13:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Smallchief (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Looks like this is your first time editing at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I've moved your report to the bottom of the page, as it was accidentally placed at the top. Please remember that the next time you need to report someone. Thanks. Minima© (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time complaining (after 8 years on wikipedia) and I hope it will be a long time before I do so again. I appreciate the kind correction. Smallchief (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have had the problem too, and it appears to be a Wikipedia problem. Here is where my problem was declared to be a bug.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll look at the link. Smallchief (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help add Wayback Machine for sources 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27 in Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. 115.74.201.137 (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never edited Maureen Wroblewitz, so I'm not the guy to contact on this subject. Smallchief (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize if my response on McDowell County was deemed to you only. In all fairness, IF every county reflects similiar data, why not?Coal town guy (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your revert on this page. This is an ongoing IP proxy/socking issue that I have been dealing with for the last few weeks here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette#06 November 2018 regards Mztourist (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smallchief, I was updating various Wichita tribal articles. I could not find a single published source that indicated that the Rayados were distinct from the Wichitas and there are no published sources even describing them as a separate subtribe. Your article mainly dealt with the archaeological site visited by Spanish explorers. Since a vast amount of new information has been discovered about the city (which you've doubtless read) since you started your article, I folded the Rayado information into an Etzanoa article and the main Wichita people article. Yuchitown (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the notificaton.Smallchief (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you are okay with it. BTW thank you for covering Native history in a region that few pay attention to. People in the Southern Plains should know their history! Yuchitown (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Hi Smallchief. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing
  Twinkle
  .
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of
  good faith edits
  .
• Rollback should never be used to
  edit war
  .
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The most notable primary source that mentions Wilen and Witherington trained together is page 79 of the PhD thesis by Elizabeth Kate Vigurs (http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/1751/1/Ethesis_FINAL.pdf).

Interesting contradiction with Witherington's date of arrival in Europe...

Regards Gdoig (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've read Vigur's thesis, but I think she is wrong on this point. Witherington arrived in France September 22/23, 1943, months before Wilen started training in early 1944 in England. Witherington met Wilen about April 16, 1944, four days after Wilen arrived in France. A time when they could have trained together doesn't seem possible. Another source, Beryl E. Escott, The Heroines of SOE, doesn't say anything about Wilen training with Witherington. Pearl Witherington's biography, She Landed by Moonlight, mentions Wilen a couple of times (p. 214, 225) as "Sophie" but doesn't say anything about knowing her in training.

• Best wishes. Smallchief (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Smallchief!

I noticed that you reverted my edit in article Camp Holmes Internment Camp, where I changed the word "make-shift" to "makeshift".

I believe that this was a straightforward correction of a mistakenly hyphenated word to the correctly joined compound word. It was not part of a quotation, so there should be no reason to keep it as presented. In other words, I don't think "make-shift" is a true English word and that it should be "makeshift". Can you please explain why you reverted this? Thanks! - Jkgree (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did I really do that? I must assume I did, because the edit summary says I did. I can barely spell my own name, let alone debate makeshift vs make-shift, which makes it weird that I saw a need to change the spelling. Sorry. Smallchief (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look and fixing it! - Jkgree (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an

You started the edit war by not taking this to the talk page when I asked you to. Please explain your position calmly and quietly, rather than accusing me of an edit war. I have also responded to your message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. I plan to take a nap, so don't expect an immediate response to any further comments you may choose to make.Smallchief (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including

"Juan" is indeed pronounced with an M sound at the end if the next word begins with a P sound (or a B sound, or another M sound). Spanish is like that. Consonants assimilate to ones that follow, even if it is one in the next word. ¡Modifica el texto sólo cuando estás seguro de lo que haces! Si se trata de un idioma que no conoces, ¡no hagas nada! Kelisi (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smallchief! Maybe you should also bring it up in Help talk:IPA/Spanish. –Austronesier (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just raised the question 5 minutes ago on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. Maybe the forum you recommend would be better. I'll look for it. Thanks. Y a proposito, para Kelisi, yo hablo castellano, pero gracias por tu inestimable sugerencia.Smallchief (talk)

Hi @Smallchief, just a friendly reminder that after your GA Review Van Sickle Island you need to do some more steps, please have a look at WP:GAN/I#PASS - if you do not feel confident to do so let me know. Thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I had no idea that I had additional tasks.:) I'll try to do what needs to be done. Smallchief (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Thank you! Well done. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

American Indians is a completely acceptable term (indeed the preferred term among American Indians in the United States), so if you prefer "Rayado Indians" in Etzanoa, I'm happy to change it back.

Also, this is a very long talk page! You might check out template:archive :) Have a good one! -Yuchitown (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

@Yuchitown: Thanks for the message. I anticipate one of these days we will go back to "Indians" and get rid of the clumsy "Native Americans" moniker. Your suggestion to archive is welcome, but I have just spent an hour of my life trying to do it, and failing (and another few minutes learning how to ping you). As my talk page says, I am not good at technology. So, no disrespect, but my talk page will apparently have to grow like Jack's beanstalk.Smallchief (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

LOL! Sorry for the time waste. I'm going to change Rayado back to Indians, but didn't want to edit war with you. The current names tribes use for themselves today exemplifies how much "Indian" is in current parlance. Yuchitown (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

He was the sockmaster and had a habit of using sources badly. Usually fringe stuff but made a mess of other articles. Doug Weller talk 08:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That whole paragraph is a bit misleading, especially about South America. While a lengthy section about the Americas doesn't belong in an article about the Neolithic Revolution of the Old World, I may undertake a revision after I finish a current project to get at least the dates right.Smallchief (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I can read a lot of the source used for the text I changed. Doug Weller talk 08:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

=

Hi Smallchief, since your focus is early Southern Plains tribes, would you care to look over the Lipan Apache people article? I've trying to overhaul it and provide neutral, readable information that might be useful to people. Any additions, removals, or corrections you care to make would be most welcome! Yuchitown (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

@

Teyas Indians

in the Texas panhandle. I doubt however they were absorbed by the Lipan. More likely, in my opinion, the Teyas were Caddoan and related to the Tejas people of eastern Texas who gave the state its name. (I looked at the Teyas article which I wrote about 12 years ago. It needs work.)

My opinions about the Lipan, not necessarily bolstered by reliable sources, is that they were probably the descendants of the Dismal River culture of western Kansas and were pushed southward to southern Texas by the Comanche from the 1730s onward. The Comanche seemed to still be at war with them in the 1830s. I'll take another more detailed look at the article and get back to you. Smallchief (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the link; Teja was my typo. The article has previously been completely useless to a student or someone wanting to learn basic information about this tribe, so if we could just compile a simple summary of what's known about them, that would wonderful. Any help you care to offer is greatly appreciated! Yuchitown (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

@Yuchitown. You're doing a good job whipping this article into shape. Another possible reference is Texas Beyond History's article on the Apache in Texas. [4] Smallchief (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smallchief, thanks for your contributions for the women's soccer community. Now I bring to your attention a group of players from the

Thanks in advance and my best regards! 2806:105E:C:3515:8D95:671:1902:F412 (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Given the no. of times it has been vandalised; can you start consensus regarding changing into Indus valley? Here are the references for it:

• ^[1]
• ^[2]
• ^[3] Sutyarashi (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From one small to another

Hello,

Thanks for the comment on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-04-03/Disinformation report. I just went to check on the number of edits a 3rd editor has contributed to Wikipedia. While I was there I checked my own edits. I'm ranked 1723, you're ranked 1733. Coincidence? :-) ? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: Great minds think alike? Your user page is much more interesting and artistic than mine! I'm neither "small" nor a "chief." What is the origin of your name? Congratulations on producing The Signpost. I'm a regular reader. I'm not sure I understand or remember how to ping another editor. So, as virtual blood brothers, do me a favor and respond to this message so I'll know that I have communicated. A minor triumph if I have managed to do so. Cheers. Smallchief (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Smallbone for a list of some of the few of us. It's an English family name. Probably the most famous person of that name was fictional - as I recall it - Penelope Smallbone in a James Bond film. But I doubt that I'm related to anybody on that disambig page. For me it's from a very distant relative and I just forgot how to spell it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: Thanks for the message. Smallchief (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of slavery in New Mexico

I actually spent sometime trying to verify the details and page numbers to see if the references should be "Captives and Cousins – Slavery, Kinship, and Community in the Southwest Borderlands", as well as checking other works by "Brooks 2008", but couldn't verify it for certain. As I fixed five of the seven broken references in the article, maybe if you don't want broken refs in the article marked at {{

CN}} you should make sure there are no broken references in the article to begin with. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Valles Caldera Reverted

just wanted to let ya know i reverted the addition of the elev to the weatherbox on Valles Caldera because i dont think it's typically included in Template:Weather box uses! But wanted to let ya know here since you're experienced and see what you think SpookyTwenty (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you comment on the word "Indian"

It almost drives me nuts when I see editors removing the word saying it's offensive. Doug Weller talk 09:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting contributions!

Hello, I would like to say thank you for adding onto to the wikipedia, I have found some of your contributions that I came across to be pretty interesting! Specifically Cerro de la sal, I came across that subject recently in literature I was researching. (Varese, Stefano (2004). Salt of the Mountain Campa Asháninka History and Resistance in the Peruvian Jungle) I would also like to say that I have been contributing to wikipedia's current Rubber boom articles, and the work I have done so far is mainly listed on my page: I would appreciate any contribution or collaboration from your end on some of those articles! Arawoke (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arawoke: Thanks for your kind words. At the moment, I'm working on articles not related to Peru, but you've given me the idea to look at the "rubber boom," so you may be seeing me around. Latin America is a fertile field for expanding and improving Wikipedia! Smallchief (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peopling of the Americas

I'm very impressed by the way you explained your revert to that new editor. Tactful and detailed. I admit to some concern about their comments about dishonesty and malfeasance. I wondered if that was a reference to Deloria and who the other scholars might be. Hm, while writing this I looked at his article and found this[5] which I am tempted to delete. Looks like OR in any case and unsourced. In particular, "as many scholars in Religious studies & Anthropology have previously argued." has been made to look sourced. What do you think? Doug Weller talk 08:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've wrestled with the disagreements between scientific orthodoxy vs research that contradicts said orthodoxy. My opinion is that it is not Wikipedia's role to challenge scientific consensus. We should acknowledge the nay-sayers but without giving their views undue weight. That would be my objection to the above language and the language I reverted in Peopling of the Americas.

However, once in in a while the nay-sayer will prove to be correct. For example, in the article about the Folsom tradition two nay-sayers, Jesse Figgins and Harold Cook, were correct that the first humans in the Americas were here long before the 3,000 years dictated in those days by scientific orthodoxy. Figgins and Cook suffered for their views. I tried to give them posthumous credit in the article and added criticism to the article about their chief persecutor, Aleš Hrdlička. That's about the best we can do: right past wrongs. Avant-garde we are not. Smallchief (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I got off on a tangent there. Yes, I think that edit you propose for deletion should be deleted -- or the language revised to read "as some scholars in religious studies and folklore have argued." Smallchief (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have a hard time justifying "some". Not on that source at least. Doug Weller talk 11:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Delete the edit. I'll support that if necessary. Smallchief (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

• Technology report: Millions of readers still seeing broken pages as "temporary" disabling of graph extension nears its second year

• Interview: Interview on Wikimedia Foundation fundraising and finance strategy

• Special report: 19-page PDF accuses Wikipedia of bias against Israel, suggests editors be forced to reveal their real names, and demands a new feature allowing people to view the history of Wikipedia articles

• Op-Ed: Wikipedia in the age of personality-driven knowledge

• Recent research: "Newcomer Homepage" feature mostly fails to boost new editors

• News and notes: Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Charter ratified

• In the media: "For me it’s the autism": AARoad editors on the fork more traveled

• Traffic report: He rules over everything, on the land called planet Dune

• Humour: Letters from the editors

• Comix: Layout issue

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Los Alerces National Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Timberline.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 62

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024

• IEEE and Haaretz now available
• Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
• Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2024

• In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV

• News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law

• WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS)

• Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users

• Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smallchief&oldid=1220703392"