User talk:Uyvsdi/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Courcelles, thank you so much! Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Carrie Bethel and the Mono Lake Paiute

Hello Uyvsdi,

Thank you so much for commenting on the tribal identification issue on the Carrie Bethel talk page. I have no expertise on this issue, but deferred to a blogger called "Yosemite_Indian" who argues forcefully that Mono Lake Paiute is the correct English terminology. It seems that these folks have a bit of grudge against the rangers in Yosemite and some of the Miwok groups, feeling that their heritage is being disrespected.

My motivation is to improve the Wikipedia coverage of the notable art of Yosemite and the High Sierra that I love, created by all cultures including of course the Native Americans.

I would appreciate any further insights into this controversy. Cullen328 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The term "Mono Lake Paiute" is perfectly fine. The problem was that these articles previously suggested that Mono Lake Paiutes are Mono tribal people. Mono Lake Paiute are Paiutes who live near Mono Lake. The Mono tribes live further south than Mono Lake. You might check with your blogger acquaintance and see if she or he also considers the Mono Lake Paiute to be the Kutsavidokado, Kucadikadi, or Kuzedika band. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Thank you very much. I enjoy the opportunity to learn a bit more and appreciate your insights. Cullen328 (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked Yosemite_Indian is Kuzedika and Mono Lake Paiutes are the same people... -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I noticed your new article Kucadikadi which is a wonderful addition. I am very pleased that you linked to a number of articles I've worked on. Thank you for your contributions. Cullen328 (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad the mystery is semi-solved. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Uyvsd

Tennessee State Recognized Tribes

Will you also place the "Edit War" notice on CJLipert Since it is he that continues to make the Erroneous edits as based on the Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs Website Meeksje (talk) 20100624 0106 (CDT) —Preceding undated comment added 06:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC).

Walam Olum

Please see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Walam_Olum. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Tusk shells

Hi Uyvsdi, Thanks for your nice note. Scaphopods (tusk shells) are a class of mollusks which I don't really know all that much about. I did add a bit of info to the article, but I am sorry to say I was too lazy to add the refs, which I am listing here instead if you feel like doing the work to put them in place.

It seems clear that Antalis pretiosum (G.B. Sowerby, 1860) is simply a more modern name for Dentalium pretiosum. For the geographical range info of this species, I used page 283, R. Tucker Abbott & S. Peter Dance, 1982, Compendium of seashells: a color guide to more than 4,200 of the world’s marine shells E.P. Dutton Inc., New York. ISBN: 0-525-93269-0. In that source they call it the "Indian money Tusk" shell.

As for Dentalium hexagonum, well, it seems that the species that lives off of California is correctly called Dentalium neohexagonum "Sharp & Pilsbry" in H. A. Pilsbry & B. Sharp, 1897, range info taken from page 94, McLean, James H., 1978 Marine Shells of Southern California, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Museum, Science Series 24, Revised Edition: 1-104. In this source they call this species the "six-sided tooth" shell.

I am not sure what species Dentalium hexagonum A.A. Gould, 1859 is, it seems perhaps it is really what is now known as Dentalium octangulatum, an Indo-Pacific species.

As you might imagine, "hexagonum" and "neohexagonum" are references to the fact that the shells have six sides, are hexagonal in cross-section, unlike A. pretiosum which is round in cross-section.

I hope this is helpful... Let me know if there is anything else I can maybe find out for you.

Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Mississippian culture pottery

Saw the additions to this page, was hoping to add something about the negative ware, but dont have access to my library right now, on the road for the next few months, lol. Thanks for the barnstar as well, much appreciated. I left a few notes on the talk page Talk:Mississippian culture pottery if you would be interested in helping expand the article further, maybe get to GA eventually? Hoping to polish it enough over the next few days to submit it to DYK. Heiro 04:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll look around and see what sources I have. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

shell gorget

Hello, thank you for creating the shell gorget article. (It is on the Portal:Gastropods also.) --Snek01 (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem - thank you for adding it to the gastropod project. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Native Writers' Circle

What's the connection between the NWCA and the Wordcraft Circle? I'm seeing the NWCA mentioned by name in press releases as recently as April 2010, so I'm confused as to how the two fit together. The article you've linked to doesn't say anything about the NWCA, and the list of Wordcraft awards listed on the Nativewiki.org page looks nothing like the NWCA categories. Are you sure these are the same organization? Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: did some more digging, and I notice that authors' bios usually name the two groups separately, and that this book (Reckonings: contemporary short fiction by Native American women By Hertha Dawn Wong, Lauren Muller, Jana Sequoya Magdaleno) notes (p.xxii) that they are different organization (although they do work together). I've reverted your edits. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, you are correct. It's pretty much the exact same people, they appear to have formed at the exact same time, and they have co-sponsored events, but NWCA seems to be based out of OU in Norman OK and WCNWS seemed to be based out of Albuquerque NM with many Oklahoman officers. Sorry about that! -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Well, I've been working on an article with the list of NWCA winners (we need more ethnic literary awards listed on WP), so if you have any good information on that group, please pass it on! (I'm not finding things very easily online.) And now I realize that we also need a Wordcraft Awards page as well--do you have any interest in working on that project? Best, Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not know anything about Native Writers Circle, but was a member and am well acquainted with the officers of Wordcraft Circle, so I can write an article about the latter. -Uyvsdi (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Cool. Meanwhile, I posted my article--it's mostly just a list of the winners. How does it look? Native Writers' Circle of the Americas Feel free to add any info you find while working on the Wordcraft article. Thanks! Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Will see if I can add anything. Perhaps I can write a Wordcraft Circle article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Happy Uyvsdi's Day!

User:Uyvsdi has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Uyvsdi's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Uyvsdi! Peace, Rlevse 00:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Very nice! Congrats, and hope your having a Happy Uyvsdi Day!Heiro 00:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Mvto! Yokoke! ᏩᏙ! -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Frank Day (artist)

thanks for the great improvement. fyi, i'm working with some folks from NMAI (User:Taoboy49) to increase coverage of folks like Frank Day, part of Wikipedia:GLAM/SI. cheers Accotink2 talk 15:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That's great news, especially since you guys probably have amazing access to info through NMAI. I figure Wikipedia is one of the easiest ways to get information out to educate the public about Native American art. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

DYK for Kucadikadi

Materialscientist (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Warnings

I have two vandalism warnings from you for edits I made to the Zitkala-sa page. My edits were made with respectful intent. The information on the libretto is repeated in a later section of the article. I edited it, because I felt it was redundant and illogical to include the information in the early part of her career. This was not vandalism. It was an honest attempt to improve the page.24.127.200.88 (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I mistakenly gave you one warning because you deleted an entire section of the article without any edit summary/explanation. Feel free to go back and revert, just remember to leave an explanation of your edits in the edit summary box above the "Save page" button. -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

American Indian Film Gallery external links

Hi, Uyvsdi. Do you have an opinion about the "American Indian Film Gallery" external links that were recently added to a number of articles by an IP editor and have now been deleted by a different one? Thanks,--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't followed the links yet, but they seem like they add to the articles and aren't commercial. Will check them out and probably restore them. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Indigenous peoples of California

Hi, thank you so much for creating the Indigenous peoples of California article. It was so needed, and I will replace my old 'make-do' links in various CA history articles with this. Your work on the original people of California, in new articles, vigilant watchlist actions, and edits is noticed and appreciated. Thanks,—Look2See1 t a l k → 04:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thank you! I didn't get very far with the article but hope to add more in the future. Please feel free to work on it! Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Your thoughts?

On these recently created articles Whitetop Laurel Band of Cherokees and George "All Indian" Sizemore? At first glance they look pretty damn iffy to me. Heiro 07:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Also this one George "All" Sizemore, which I went ahead and tagged as you had tagged the other, it was a near identical to the similarly named one I mentioned previously. Heiro 07:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It all looks a bit fishy. I almost wonder if these are even real people, notable or non. -Uyvsdi (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Who knows, maybe. Looks pretty wannebe to me. Although this gets me [1]. Almost everyone of the "testimonies" consists of people saying "I dunt know nuttin bout them bein Indians". Heiro 07:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, a few more say do than dont, guess it was the luck of the draw the first 4 or 5 I randomly clicked on said the above, lol. Neither here nor there, as a self published genealogical site isnt an RS anyway. Heiro 07:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines for an organization to be notable are pretty clear (WP:ORG) and basically the organization has to do something – have "any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education", so a group that only talks about their 18th century ancestors but doesn't volunteer, do community development, or anything else that would attract 3rd party coverage would definitely not qualify. I don't know why some folks think wikipedia articles about their group confers some kind of legitimacy. /rant :) -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Would the first paragraph here Chief Red Bird#Murder and aftermath all in quotations and attributed to here <ref>{{cite journal|first=Dr. John J.|last= Dickey |title=Dr. John J. Dickey Diary, Fleming County, Ky. Recorded in the 1870's and beyond.|journal= Kentucky Explorer|volume=11|date= March 1997|page= 107}} </ref> be a copyvio? The contributor for the article has since added 2 more sources, which are self published. But originally the entire body of text was cited to one place and all included in quote marks. Not sure what to do. Thoughts? Heiro 03:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Since six people voted for deletion, copyvio will be moot very shortly, don't you think? Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Original contributor keeps trying to find sources, inserting this trying that, I've tried to dialog with them on their talk and on the article talk, but no responses. He found this, but everything else is still pretty hopeless. But thats as close to a reliable soiurce he's come to.Heiro 04:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Found another one Ridgetop Shawnee, similar subject. Did some cleanup, your thoughts? Heiro 15:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I had just assumed they were telling the truth when they said they were state-recognized. They seem to have a little more actual references. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

According to everything I found, Ky has no state or federally recognized tribes. While they were extant (which they no longer seem to be), they had some sort of relationship with the state, but not as a recognized tribe. Heiro 16:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hair drop

Thanks for adding the references, Not sure why you did not remove the prod and unref tags, but I did. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I thought it was something that had to go up to public discussion. Thanks! -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Nope, "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason". When ever you improve an article and remove the reason for a tag is no longer present you may remove the tag. Only WP:AFD go on for public debate. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I noticed that your edits dealing with indigenous peoples related articles were impressive and so I've decided to award you this WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America Editor's Barnstar! .... Moxy (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Greenlandic cuisine

Hello! Your submission of Greenlandic cuisine at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Intelligentsium 21:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Greenlandic cuisine

Cbl62 (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Blimey you're fast

... I was just coming back to do that!

Anyway, this just a note to say that I think the referenced redlinks should stay - some writers are below the notability threshold for an article but should still be included on a list like this one. Vizjim (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm procastinating and should be away from computer - ack! Fair enough regarding cited redlinks... it's just after a year (or several) of being listed and redlinked, I wonder if anyone will write an article about the person? Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

To Uyvsdi

Not wanting to get into a altercation over at the Hopi page, I wanted to ask what are your credientials and depth of knowledge are vis a vis Hopi? And please refreain from removing my additions to notable people. I don't care if there is no page on wikepedia - there should be, but isn't - notable people are notable people and the ones I have put back on the page are more than notable. It may have escaped your attention that Hopi is an oral culture, which explains why describing it does not, cannot and probably will never conform to quasi academic standards wikipedia seems to demand. Nothwithstanding there is a fair amount of info on said notables. In the meantime it would be appreciated if you could desist from acting like a wiki despot. I thank you. If you would like to enter into some sort of discussion, you can email me at my wiki name at aol dot com. Aarionrhod (talk) 15 nov 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarionrhod (talk • contribs) 23:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Hopi, if that's what you are getting at. In the time you spent edit warring with me, you could have easily written stubs for all the people you listed in the article. Perhaps you could at least find citations for them? I have no earthly idea why you don't want Jean Fredericks listed as a photographer, since that is exactly what he is known for in the secondary literature outside of Hopiland. With possibly a handful of exceptions, every tribe north and south of Mexico have primarily oral cultures, but that hasn't stopped any other editor from finding secondary source material about tribes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has to be based on secondary sources for verifiability. Regarding the economic development section, I took the time to completely rewrite the section from scratch because I'd rather improve the article than fight with you. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Talkback

Hello, Uyvsdi. You have new messages at Malcolmxl5's talk page.
Message added 21:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shell gorget-related conversation with new user

Hey, was wondering if you'd help keep an eye on this, maybe jump in if you can help. After removing their edits here [2] and [3], I welcome templated them and left some further links. They responded with the message below at my talk. You're probably a lot more up to date on modern NA artists and would do better at evaluating the claims made there than myself, as no hits popped up at google.

• At my talk - User talk:Heironymous Rowe#im not spam, although I'm hoping to keep the conversation at their talk page or the article talk page
• Their user page - User talk:DarthVoltron#Welcome - where I've left a welcome template, and links to WP:SPAM, Conflicts of Interest, and Reliable sources, as well as some advice for how to proceed.

Thanks in advance, Heiro 06:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC).

Wow, your fast, lol. Heiro 06:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Native American artists

Cool I'll do that... I'm a little confused though. Can I just remove the redlinks and non-links or do I have to research each one and find out if it might be notable? Or maybe I just delete and see if anyone objects? Atneyak (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Anything that's not even linked or cited just definitely be pulled. I'm against redlinks in lists, but do whatever you think is best. Notability guidelines for people are here: WP:ARTIST. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Cool, I'm happy to pull all the redlinks (: Atneyak (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

But can you tell me how to justify it given it's just a list of people who are listed somewhere as native american artists? Atneyak (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I see, but notability isn't a requirement of that list. I mean, I agree with you... they should be pulled from the list if they aren't notable. But if someone says to me how I justified it and I say "not notable" and then they say "but they don't have to be notable enough for an article to make the list" how do I respond? If you read the lead on the list article, there's no notability requirement. Atneyak (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability is a requirement for wikipedia across the board. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Yeah, for articles, but not for their content "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." Atneyak (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In stand alone lists, notability is absolutely a consideration. Any entry to a stand alone list should be notable enough to have its own article.-Uyvsdi (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Oh well I'll try taking some out and see what happens :P Atneyak (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

chr

there's a lot of junk coming in at chr:. I humbly suggest you take up the temp-admin-mop since none of the global sysops seems to give a damn. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Seb, I'm not sure where to begin, but will write back on your account there. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Salish words re weaving

This and other articles describe people sharing a common language group - but not common language - as if they were homogenous, and in the case of providing word-example, as if those words were universal across Salishan languages, which they're definitely not. My guess is that the words provided are in Halkomelem, one of its dialects anyway (of three major divisions), but could be North Straits Salish or Lushootseed; depending on who the contributor is could be anything from Squamish to Nooksack to Sechelt to even an Interior Salishan language. When we do have cites for them, it's imperative we say what language they're from, and hopefully we'll be able to have more than one language per item represented.Skookum1 (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon it... it definitely looks like a mess, but there is a lot material to work with. I tried googling some of the words but only came up with wiki mirror sites. The books cited seem to be about Coastal Salish not Interior, but I don't know - you'd know more about the different groups than me. The website of the Simon Fraser museum, where the images come from, only discusses Coastal Salish weaving. Is that too broad a group or could we chuck the words and rephrase the article about Coastal Salish?? -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Lakota orthography

Hi, Uyvsdi. Regarding our discussion at Talk:Lakota language, I just wanted to express my thanks to you for tracking down and citing sources. In disagreeing about an issue, my comments can sometimes come across as, well, disagreeable. I just wanted you to know that I support and agree with your impulses, even if we disagree about one particular source. Thanks and happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Say, are you in Oklahoma? I lived in Norman until this year, when I moved to Nagoya, Japan. It's a small (virtual) world. Cnilep (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I live in another state, but am tracking down references right now. Merry Christmas! -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Merry Christmas to you, too. And those sources look good; thank you again. Cnilep (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Message

Hello, Uyvsdi. You have new messages at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Henties_Bay.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Pgallert (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Erg, re Nooksacks

Uh, gee, I see your point, but there's a standing guideline, not applied across the board, that ethno, reservation and government articles be kept separate, or evolve that way; the tendency with government and combined government/reservation articles is for it to be about the government, and the post-treaty/contact/reserve situation; which is why Squamish Nation is separate from Skwxwu7mesh (or, if you'd prefer, Squamish people, but teh Skwxwu7mesh usage is now current within British Columbia when it's the people, not the government, that's referred to. Similarly the Tsawwaseens, Coquitlams and other one-band peoples. At the very least the redirects should have the ethno categories vs being on the target government page. Even ethno pages get overblown with government, but on them is where the traditional government shoudl be, as is the case on Nuu-chah-nulth and Kwakwaka'wakw, though in both those cases there are many bands; there are others like High Bar First Nation have little in teh way of ethno material to add, other than what is generally citable about the Shuswap....or the Nuxalk, which is, or should be, a separate article from Nuxalk Nation, which is their band government. The merge was against that guideline, I'm sorry it's so long ago I don't know where in {{NorthAmNative}} it is; it was evolved by indigenous participants and others; not sure if you are or not, I'm not. But this was the principle between separating the traditional history from the post-Conquest, effectively, history and US-chartered organizations...which are often seen as illegitimate by those loyal to traditional culture/government....I won't go on about it, but Id' suggest you un-merge them and consider the ramifications; there is also, no "Squaxin Island people" as I mentioend there somewhere; there are peoples who are part of the reserrvation-caused Squaxin Island Tribe and its Reservation; but the REservation article should theoretically be separate and likewise has different categorizations.....In some Canadian provinces the original layout still has band governments categorized under where their reserve enames should be; it's vast, I know and complicated; but even in unitary instances like this, or the Chehalis First Nation vs Sts'Ailes, there's a reason for the distinct articles, and also for why the traditional-language name is used, or the form "Foo people" (which I think is preferable to "Foo (tribe)" for previously discussed reasons somewhere.Skookum1 (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Changed it to Nooksack people, because I don't really care that strongly. There was no previous Nooksack Indian Tribe of Washington article before, so no merge occurred. There's a disturbing tendency on Wikipedia to generally write about Native peoples in the past with a only tidbit of contemporary information tacked on the end and perhaps a stub about the current people — I've steadily added contemporary information about and images of 21st century Native people. Since this is the English language wiki, English names are used over autonyms that less familiar to English readers. Since there's only one Nooksack tribe, I had chosen to use the name they are currently using for their own group. Personally I don't agree with separating reservation/colony/rancheria/reserve articles, but the point is moot because it's rare someone else have bothered to write separate articles for the contemporary tribe and their land. Yes, I'm Native, enrolled in one federally recognized tribe and descended from two other tribes, and I've taught Native students (including First Nations and indigenous Latin Americans) at a tribal college, serve on the board of grassroots tribal art organizations, publish native language materials, etc. -Uyvsdi (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Thanks for moving that back, but note the material on teh band government and any properties, businesses owned/operaeted by it should use the capita-T Tribe title, the ethno and especially up-to-treaty history and cultural stuff hshould mostly be on the Nooksack people page. If there's an actual Reservation (sometimes there isn't, in fact) it ultimately should be separate, though the tendency is for small ones to make them one or the same, or redirect the one to the other; but note in Category:First Nations reserves in British Columbia what's there is teh land-object name, directed either to a place or a band article; though sometimes the reserve article does exist separately, for various differeing reasons. Point is to "sort" the categories among the redirects, for clarity; and also for possible re-expansion or new-expansion to separate articles, as necessary; e.g. Colville people is actually Colville peoples, but I'll be back about that later...Colville-Okanagan is the current language article relative to and should-be-separate-from the ethno article, and otehr than as a brief section, not on teh government or reservation articles, though linked there; point with that one is "most common usage" is Okanagan/Okonagon; that title is used by linguists....there are several peoples represented in the confederation formed by the Coville REservation's settlements...but that's a complicated one, more alter, muy back's hurting, need a break, been writing for a while.....08:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization, yes, that's why it was Nooksack Indian Tribe of Washington. -Uyvsdi (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

re your reply prior to my just-previous, the lack of modern government articles is counterbalanced on the other hand by the paucity and/or thinness of many "people" articles and also the lack of discrete reservation articles, or at least as noted is sometimes suitable to the band government (many BC rural reserves are widely dispersed and either empty or so de-populous as to not need/warrant articles). It's an ongoing project, there simply aren't enough people working on NorthAmNative articles....mostly of late yourself and, when I can, myself (a LOT are on my watchlist); many had burnout, like OldManRivers, MurderBike, and...damn, can't remember her name just now, the maven of the group, a Cheyenne. I've done what I can around BC and on other Canadian articles, but even in the Pacific Northwest there's a lot needs sorting out; and the way to keep the two contents clear is to confine the pre-modern and cultural stuff to one article, and work at embellishing (or separating, as is sometimes the case as with the Flathead and Montana Salish articles; which are intertangled with the Ktunaxa articles/categories in complicated ways. And my time gets taken up by that Plains Indians quibble and such; wrastling with terminological isseus; I still haven't had time/energy to get back at properly writing the Northwest section of the American Indian Wars article, which needs Yakima, Cayuse, etc - the general history of post-1846 wars, which is just as complicated as that on the Plains or in the Southeast......lots of work, I'm on multiple topics and am also a busy writer beyond wiki, and trying to find a job at the same time as slowly work on my recordings, and eat and shop etc.....how we could recruit more US-side NorthAmNative contributors/editors I'm not sure, but I do know, as per OldManRivers in the tussle over the use of Skwxwu7mesh instead of Squamish people or Squamish (tribe), is that to get native participants "on side" you can't override their preferences, or necessary ethno-corrections like why Kwakwaka'wakw is titled that, and not Kwakiuitl (see both). As above, the solution for combined articles is to split them, even just to stubs. If you build it they will come.Skookum1 (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's just say it was a Nooksack, actually - Murderbike, I think - who titled in their native language; someone else came along and expanded that into a more government article, then, but that wasn't its intent. There's ethnographic material out there on them, that woudl flesh out a remaining stub, but once they're merged other editors to come along will see no reason for why it should be anything but a redirecct, because the one kidn of content is so far submerged inside/within there wouldn't seem to be a reason to separate them; as i said above, the problem exists in both directions; but stubbing rather than merging sets up the structure of how things are supposed to grow....as there's lots of material on both (though in this case probably less than for th reservation per se).Skookum1 (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again we need to agree to disagree and move on. The Peoria, Quapaw, Caddo, and Kiowa article are integrated because there is only one of each of these tribes. In these instances, the people are the government, and our cultures are alive and evolving. I made the Nootsack people name change you request. Other than that, I haven't been editing any of the articles you've mentioned. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Uyvsdi/Archive 3! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10