I am working on Cherokee Heritage Groups mainly because what's there right now is really about tribes and tribal groups rather than real heritage groups. There are some very important heritage groups in Cherokee history, and much of the controvesy surrounding them shaped that history, so they cannot be left out. However, adding these heritage groups to "Cherokee" would only increase the confusion between the "Cherokee Nation", Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Cherokee Tribe, Cherokee people, etc. By keeping this separate, and eliminating much of what presently appears under Cherokee Heritage Groups that actually relates to "tribes" it will help to eliminate some confusion about the phoney tribes while spotlighting how those who really sought to keep the culture and "heritage" have evolved.

As of this date, I have not removed the list of non-recognized tribes that are on the page as "heritage groups". They really don't belong there. They call themselves tribes, not heritage groups. Whether they are tribes or not is up to debate, but the fact is, they are not heritage groups. Also notice the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma also has it's own National Historical Society, that maintains a "First Families of the Cherokee Nation". This group includes Cherokee citizens, intermarried whites, whites living under permit, Freedmen, and others. If nothing else, the fact that it includes Freedmen makes it notable.

There is much still to be done here. I have seen this marked for deletion in the past, but I think that targeting this to what it is really supposed to be about will increase it's value to stand alone.

I will soon add the references for each.

The majority of the information is directly from wiki articles relating to those persons or places in the paragraph. Since the words are linked, would I still need to cite the wiki article again? For example, in the first paragraph, it is almost word for word from the wiki article on Martin Van Buren. I could put it in quotes and cite the wiki article if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odestiny (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, using Wikipedia article titles as footnotes is rarely accepted. (By accepted I mean for those articles hoping to achieve peer-reviewed status such as Good Article or Featured Article. That's not something I worry about myself, but I like to try to follow the general guidelines of the community.) Since I am not really familiar with this era -- I limit myself to the Civil War -- I can't give you concrete suggestions, except to go to those Wikipedia articles which you are linking to and find the sources that they use. Alternatively, and preferably, you should cite a secondary source biography of Scott. I appreciate your asking the question. The vast majority of times that I request citations I get either indignation or silence (and after about two weeks, I remove the uncited material). I think it is important to have citations particularly for those cases where there are accusations of poor behavior, as with the material you just added. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I have added citations and hope they will suffice. If not, I will try to supply better. For the soldier's statement, I added a second reference in the links at the bottom of the page back to the full letter reproduced on the Cherokee Nation website. Having seen some of the craziness added to the wiki page about the Cherokee, I am beginning to understand the importance of the citations now. Thanks again. Odestiny (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I spruced up the footnote format, but there's one that's a problem--the cite for Pvt Burnett (#4) is really obscure. Have you no publication info or web link? It's not worth having a citation if no one can access it. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent contribution(s) to the Wikipedia article Jack Burris are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at How to cite sources. Thanks! • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am presently awaiting a reply from the Oklahoma Bureau of Investigation as well as some archival material before adding more. I originally had an underconstruction on here but somebody took it off. I am inviting some additions from people familiar with this in Pryor, Oklahoma legal and one of the book offers too.

Welcome!

Hello, Odestiny, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Okiefromokla ^complaints 19:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the edits were part of the source. I should have checked it closer but to be honest I thought the three edits they made were false. But I still believe the edits were unnecessary and they were not needed on the Oklahoma page but in the, List of Oklahoma state symbols. I apologize for the miss wording in my edit summary. I will also send a message to the IP with the same info. Sorry for the confusion --CPacker (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, House of Moytoy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Moytoy. Thank you. -Binary TSO ^???

I recall we had a discussion some time ago about whether the three Cherokee tribes acted in unison - and they have! All three worked together to establish the Kituwah Academy. Cheers, Uyvsdi (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

I couldn't be happier to be wrong about them. Thank you for the information. I missed it.Odestiny (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Robert Greer (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy to answer, yet understandably confusing: there is a Category:Shawnee people which is for persons, and that one is already given. Shawnee tribe is supposed to be for everything else concerning the tribe (government, institutions,...). Likewise, there is Category:Native American artists which is a subcategory of Category:Native American people. I'm not done with this cleanup yet — ideally, a page is supposed to be in the most specific categories. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, considering how new I am at editing, why changes I made to that profile (unsourced) were deleted while previous changes/additions (also unsourced) were allowed to remain. Twilightinthegarden (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Odestiny. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH?Q_DL=3dz0m2ubQw1KSnb_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH_MLRP_0vJEhw9YEzv64Wp&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Odestiny. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Odestiny. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]