User talk:Smallchief

--Smallchief 17:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Tedickey (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joining NorthAmNative Project

Hi Smallchief. Go here WP:IPNAPART and add your sig , then go here WP:IPNATEMP and grab a template for your userpage, if you like. Welcome! Duff (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Salinas basin.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Salinas basin.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 18:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:1. Ament.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:1. Ament.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Bobby122 (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nicolas de Aguilar

On 31 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nicolas de Aguilar, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Council Grove, Kansas

Please add references to the text you added. I seem to remember someone adding similar text in the past months, and then someone removing it. Thanks. Sbmeirow (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the text, I just fixed it it up so it would display properly. User:Smallchief

Merging articles

I see you've deleted my article "Seymour Expedition, China 1900" to "merge" it with one called "Seymour Expedition." May I suggest you take anther look at the two competing articles. My article is, or rather was, authoritative, well-sourced, impartial, and accurate. The other one is not. Perhaps before you merge articles you should consult people who had a hand in drafting the articles? Or undertake a qualitative review of the two articles? If you had taken the time to read the two articles I believe you would not have deleted mine. User:Smallchief 19:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand the point of Wikipedia. You do not file an article like a newspaper report, you add to existing ones. You cannot have two articles on the same matter, that is a cornerstone of Wikipedia policy.

Your article has not been deleted, it has been redirected. You're more than welcome to add to the other one. John Smith's (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One would think that the cornerstone of Wikipedia would be to provide accurate and impartial information to the public. My article did that. The other one does not. If you will look at nearly all the articles regarding the Boxer Rebellion, and the discussion pages, you will detect a pattern of serious bias in the articles. I've tried to correct that bias. Several others have worked harder at it than I have. We've been unsuccessful. The article you kept is an example of that bias. I was trying to rectify the situation by writing an alternative article with the expectation that an editor considering a merge would take the relative quality of the two articles into account. In the 100 plus articles I have written or edited for Wikipedia I've never had anybody reject, or even seriously criticize, my work. Edit, yes. Improve, yes. Delete, no. User:Smallchief

If my article has not been deleted, where is it? How can I recover it with all the Wiki-code intact so that I don't have to re-write it completely. User:Smallchief

First of all, I suggest you have a root around the "help" section on the main page. That will help you understand better how to use Wikipedia. I know there's lots of bias on Wikipedia, but the best way is to improve existing ones. Otherwise you will have articles fully deleted.

When an article is redicted its history is kept intact. Your article history is here. The code is available here, but as I mentioned earlier please do not copy and paste. Even if it takes you a while, please improve the existing article. That does not mean you cannot make substantial changes to content, layout, style, etc. John Smith's (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But let me suggest that the next time you "merge" articles by deleting one of them, you pick the better one to keep. Or if you don't know which is the better, perhaps you shouldn't be involved in the decision? User:Smallchief

Actually per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia Smallchief can copy and paste the stuff from the old article (Seymour Expedition, China 1900) into Seymour Expedition as long as he attributes the source in an edit summary with the link provided, you will have to provde http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seymour_Expedition,_China_1900&redirect=no in the edit summary.

you can copy and paste your sections from the old article into Seymour Expedition, but do not delete the existing summary, if you want corrections suggest them in the talk page.

from what i see, your article provided a general summary of the whole expedition, while mine provided details of a series of battles in that expedition albeit i did not mention every single battle such as Xigu forts etc. and the article was seriously incomplete, i was not done working on it. And by the way my article is not some unsourced dump of assertions, the sources used actually back up the events described in the article.

about the "serious bias" you assert, you have inexplicably deleted referenced information without giving any reason. You said earlier that it was an "earlier battle". I never said that the statement the people in the legations received was true, that would have been original research. Instead, i just stated exactly what message they received.

a search of the site on google says: "They'd received the good news that the detachment of theirs with Seymour's Peking Relief Expedition which had been soundly defeated at Yangtsun by the massed forces of China' Kansu Muslim Army, had fought its way to Hsi Ku Arsenal only eight miles from Tientsin and was holding out there with Seymour"

And on the nianhua, if you wanted that corrected, instead of using original research, such as claiming the Empress was misinformed, you should have added that the nianhua was propaganda and created by artists who did not view the alleged event. If source A said event X happened (such as Cixi receiving news of a victory), and source B said event X did not happen(no victory occured), you cannot say that source B proves that event X happened due to Cixi being misinformed, because Source B never said that. You can question the reliability of Source A, and add to the article that Nianhua may be unreliable, you can say that "according to Source B the events in Source A are false", but not synthesize. see Wikipedia:No original research. I have already added that the nianhua were by authors who never witnessed the battles, and depicted "alleged" events to the article.Дунгане (talk) 06:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OWN -- once you contribute an article to Wikipedia it takes on a life of its own. If the community decides that it is better to have one instead of three articles on a subject, the articles are merged together. As for creating a second article on the same topic, just because you want to write it with different text... well WP:CFORK says that should not be done. If the newer article on the same topic is just a rewording of the first article without presenting new facts, it can be deleted through {{db-same}} quickly, so when you create a new article on the same topic, you are in danger of being swiftly deleted. The articles pointed out here that you have created were not deleted, but neither could two articles on the same topic continue to have separate existences on Wikipedia, since no encyclopedia has multiple articles on the exact same topic. (crack open a deadtree Comptons Encyclopedia and see how many articles about hydrogen exist) What you should have done was contribute to the existing article by revising it, adding sections and information, much as how you would renovate a house. Your contributed articles have been incorporated into the preexisting articles, through merger of content. 65.94.47.218 (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]