wiki-4This user is an expert Wikipedia editor.
Paullusmagnus-logo.JPGThis user has been a Wikipedian since August 4, 2006.
Wikidata-logo.svgThis user contributes to Wikidata, the free knowledge base.

ITN recognition for Lorena BorjasEdit

 On 31 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Lorena Borjas, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Department stores based in CaliforniaEdit

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Department stores based in California requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

{{Source assess table}}Edit

Would it be possible to set the table and Danny's script for the table to collapse by default? The tables can grow quite large in the daily afd logs and navigating the discussion becomes difficult. The discussions tend to become very self-assertive by editors using this template. The assessment of sources is done by individuals themselves, which others might not agree with. Collapsing solves the issue of making it clear that the assessment is a part of the editor's rationale who made that assessment, and does not represent a consensus of others necessarily. - hako9 (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

To Hako9: I've added the autocollapse class so that the table will collapse when there is more than one table present on a page, like on the daily logs, and added an abbreviated disclaimer about status with respect to consensus. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 16:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much, for this, and for everything else. And I think I can say on behalf of every editor here. - hako9 (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Aw, shucks! Thanks. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 14:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Source assess tableEdit

 Template:Source assess table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Paul McDonald (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Cineflix original programming has been nominated for renamingEdit

 

Category:Cineflix original programming has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Nacoochee MoundEdit

The evidence is presented in the sources provided themselves. Did you review the sources at all? I looked over each source before adding the citation. No evidence was provided to refute the assertions made in the primary or secondary sources to the article itself. The Cherokee were present and did occupy and live in the village following the American Revolution. Is that minimal to the over all existence of the village. It's a possible conclusion however, minimal is far from saying they were never there as asserted in the non-sourced statement. I was being generous in leaving the statement and adding the template. Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Which source specifically, and precisely where in the source? I can see justification for removing or hedging the statement that Cherokee were not present, but I'm not aware of definitive evidence that they were present. One source says the might have been, but that excavation has not been done. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 15:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
It is not the place of a reviewer to prove the information contained in an article is factual or not. It is the place of the creator of the article and the one who makes the statements to prove it is factual. We do this with in-line citations that specifically detail and/or support the statements being made. None of the sources state the Cherokee were not ever present or did not inhabit the area. After the Battle of Taliwa the Cherokee pushed the Creeks south and occupied northern Georgia and western South Carolina. As they did so they occupied existing towns. I have not entered this into evidence because I need to verify the sources as reliable but we are given a map of Cherokee Country from 1755, post Taliwa to the Removal, as part of our studies of Cherokee history and the map included the Cherokee town of Nacoochee which is across the Chattahoochee River from Chota, not to be confused with Chote in Tennessee, and along the trail west and southwest of towns of Soquee and Talulah. The Cherokee occupied and inhabited even more villages after the American Revolution as they were compelled to cede the northerly lands to the United States. Whether this map is factual or not is as irrelevant as the sources provided here in determining truth or not. The sources do not determine one way or another and in most cases refuse to even address it therefore the accepted narrative that the Cherokee did occupy and inhabit the area stands. Proof must be presented to refute accepted historical data.Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
This is edit warring and I am bringing you up before ANI as disruptive. Every source of historical data says the Cherokee were present. The town was Creek American Indian town prior to defeat to the Cherokee at the Battle of Taliwa. Your personal opinion does not matter to wikipedia in the face of historical data. You have not proven the Cherokee were not present. Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Good luck with that. If nothing else, you can lean about burden of proof. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 13:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
This is your official notice.   There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion has been categorized as Edit Warring and moved to the appropriate location. This notice should take you there. == Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion ==

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The true waste of time was the reversions in the first place. I would like to note that my initial edit called for citations on the claims made that the Cherokee weren't present as it was non-sourced. You still haven't provided one shred of evidence they weren't there. All current evidence, as referenced in the sources to the article itself, and eye witness testimony/analysis states they WERE there. The only one claiming they weren't is you and/or the previous editors who put that information into the article to begin with. If you didn't feel you needed to defend yourself then you wouldn't have commented. You have provided no relevant citations for your claims up to this point either as I pointed to in the talk page. You started out pushing your narrative and continue to do so despite being proven wrong. The closing of the ANI is not because you were right but because of Wikipedia policy that there must be four reverts in a 24 hour period. I will get an admin to review the article and see if your mis-referenced statements can be further edited to what we currently know as fact rather than conjecture on the part of an editor or editors. Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)