Hi There, nice work you're doing on Southern Cherokee nation of Kentucky - you obviously know what you're talking about. Mark^Dask 13:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - the "Original Research" tag might suggest you are losing sight of objectivity in the article. I imagine you would not want your expert input to be compromised by editors of lesser knowledge than yourself so can I suggest you tighten up on your language? I deleted the word "unfortunate" because it is value-laden. Maybe your authority on the subject is compromised when a person of my relative inexperience can challange you on so trivial an issue. The "original Research" tag is something you dont want - it undermines your authority - the authority of your otherwise excellent input. Mark^Dask 17:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - to you as well. The citations are all from legitimate sources, and were carefully researched. Additionally, Many sentances were recently tagged with the need for citations. I either cited where the information came from, reworded, or deleted the questionable sentances, but the objections remained. To just say that the citations are questionable, but not say how, or which ones is not objective either. This demonstartes that the information contained within the article, even though factual may not be palatable to certain faction of Southern Cherokee posturing for legitimacy as a tribe (and the CNO for that matter). A lot of the information cited is common knowledge, and should not even need a citation, but I have had to go over and beyond what I believe is normal. There are many articles on the Wikipedia with less citations, and of lesser quality without the PO/POV label I used an existing format common to the Wikipedia. I am starting to believe a simple article has become a political football. ~PB

I have supplied citations I/A/W the criteria listed below. What citations are in quetions and why? Please be specific.

Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by or detailed within the sources.

This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence exist. If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is "original research". To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented.

Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material.

"No original research" is one of three core content policies, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, that jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.

Hi again - I deleted the "original research" tag but another person proposed the article for deletion again. From what research I have done on Chuck Hamilton, who appears to have proposed deletion, he has a keen interest in, and is very knowledgeable about Cherokee history. He wrote this article - Timeline of the Cherokee Removal completely, but note he does not use inline citations. He seems to object to the very existance of this article. I have voted to keep the article again HERE but your vote will carry far more weight given your knowledge on the subject and the work you have done on it. I am sure it will be kept but your vote matters more than anyones. Mark^Dask 17:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, does this process ever end? When is a decision finally made to keep or delete, and how many times can an article go up deletion? I have taken most of Chuck's suggestions, but it has not helped. His vote remains the same. He continues to harp on the citations, are they really that bad? Any suggestions? Thanks ~PB 76.121.154.140 (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ~PB. Yes this process ends soon, and it will be kept again. Chuck's vote will always be to delete but he does not decide. The Discussion usually lasts about a week. The reason it was proposed again for discussion was because Chuck or Uyvsdi proposed it for deletion, probably as a hoax, and because he called it a hoax, some administrator, who knows little or nothing about Cherokee history will have decided that it deserved discussion a second time just in case. Now that you have demonstrated "good faith" by continuing to work on it, and with such a good knowledge of the subject it will be kept, and if the same person proposes it for deletion twice they get rejected and told to go discuss it on the talk page. If the same person tries a third time they get warned, if a fourth time they get blocked for a while, but now there's no way the article will get deleted so your time has not been wasted. I've been reading the discussion on the Talk page and Uyvsdi is willing to accept the page so its really worth working with him - he's Native American and so he's protective of his heritage, but I think he's being fair and sincere. Read about him by clicking Here. He is hugely knowledgeable. You already know Chuck's opinion but read down thru Chuck's Talk page and you will see he has been blocked before for "edit warring". He is very confrontational, and sees SCNOK as a "dime-a-dozen" group. Unfortunately, because of his expert knowledge he is inclined to ignore other peoples' views, as his history shows. Administrators already know Chuck's history and can be relied upon to defend the article against edit warring so stick to your guns and work with Uyvsdi, even though you both disagree a lot. One other thing - Chuck said on the voting page that your vote doesnt count - yes it does. I will continue to follow the discussion and the article for two reasons, one because I think the SCNOK are encyclopedic and two because I don't like to see private politics deciding who and what goes into Wikipedia. By the way, you should register, its easy and people take you more seriously if you are registered. Feel free to ask if you have any other questions. Mark^Dask 14:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mark for your attention to all that is going on. I will continue to work on the citations, and word smithing. I will try and wrap things up in the next couple of days. I really enjoy working on the artcle, but at times it did seemed as though I was defending a dissertation. Please contiinue to send me the updates, they keep me going. ~PB 76.121.154.140 (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I deleted the hoax tag again earlier but Chuck replaced it again - read the talk page. When the article is kept, you will probably have to maintain it for a while as both Chuck and Uyvsdi will want to change stuff. If it gets rough I will take it to the administrators to decide but I can't maintain the article because I know nothing compared to you three. Read Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory. Chuck fought that article, but it still exists. Mark^Dask 04:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hoax tag is harrassment, and Chuck Hamilton has been accused before of personal attacks and incivility on his talk page, (read especially the NCNolt Afd section) but eventually, as with the Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory article, which he was warned about, it still exists, and without any tags. I will now get in touch with that administrator and ask him to intervene in this Afd also. meanwhile you are going to have to slim down the article where you rely on the SCNky website cos thats where Uyvsdi mostly objects - your reliance on that website makes it look like you are trying to promote the claim, it reads a bit like you are even a member of the tribe. Sorry abnout that but better you edit it than have Uyvsdi rip it to pieces after the article is Kept. Mark^Dask 11:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again PB - did you read the above section? I noticed you deleted reference 2 - you have great patience. It wont be long before the article is kept - then Chuck and Uyvsdi will "take over" the article, and after they are finished you will be in a position to assess whether all your work was worth it. Of course you can continue to add back what you think should remain in the article but I think you were darned unlucky to decide to write an article that happens to be so contentious. Again - the Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory article was savaged by those two when it was first written but at least now it exists and there are no tags. If you think they go too far you might like to consider going to Administrators' Noticeboard/Geopolitical conflicts, where you can involve admins in any dispute and argue the case. Or you might prefer that I handle that side of things, which I will, but I cant much argue the content knowing little about the subject. I hope you're not losing interest, you've done a fantastic job. If you hadn't, the article would definitely have been deleted. Mark^Dask 12:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PB - since Chuck has put back the three tags on the article you have reverted them 3 times in 24 hours - unfortunately that is against the rules and you can be blocked temporarily for it. It serves no purpose just to delete them when he's only going to put them back again. The only way the article can survive in any substantial way is if what you write is agreeable to all parties. You are in a difficult position given Chuck regards the SCNky as illigetimate, but reverting his tags serves no purpose at this stage, and you don't want to be blocked. perhaps better to leave the tags until the article has been kept - then resort to the Administrators' Noticeboard/Geopolitical conflicts when you have exhausted the discussion between you both. Uyvsdi has said the article can exist without conflict but only as a factual piece, devoid of any contentious stuff regarding the claim, but it is a long way from that point as is, given Chucks disposition. Either way you are stuck with the tags for as long as Chuck and Uyvsdi contest the content of the article. Nothing personal on their part. I hope this helps. Mark^Dask 14:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for your honesty. I must admit my emotions were starting to get the best of me. I see no immediate resolution, as they refuse to acknowledge the right of these Cherokee people to even exist, much less acknowledge any history they might have. Chuck is in total contention, and even if I satisfy Uyvsdi the tags will remain for as long as the article exists. Chuck submitted forcibly that they are frauds/fakes x 2. I tried opening up a dialogue with Uyvadi, and as far as I could tell he was not receptive. I will take your advice, and wait to see what develops. 76.121.154.140 (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must 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) 21:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 could 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) 14:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]