User talk:Lordoliver/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lordoliver. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lupin/Filter_recent_changes

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force/Requested biographies Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force/New articles

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Crisis

An unexpected development on Wikipedia that concerns us has been brought to our attention by Moonriddengirl. Please follow this link for more information. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin?

Hey Lordoliver, I just happened to notice your userboxes... one of your user boxes indicated that you wanted to be an admin. I am not opposed to taking a closer look at your edit history (the fact that you are a coordinator at MilHist speaks well to your chances.) That being said, your user boxes will probably become a sticky point. User boxes that makes simple declarative statements such as "I am a Christian" or "I am an Atheist" or "I am a Republican" generally do not garner any opposes. User boxes that take political/religious stances ("I believe life begins at conception" or "I believe in the devinity of Jesus" etc) generally will garner opposition. The disctinction becomes, are you making a statement about your personal beleifs or does your statement convey a message about what others might believe. I'll note that most of the time the opposes come from people who share religious convictions similar to your own about Atheist/Agnostics, but I suspect that some of those boxes won't sit well with some people at an RfA. Also, be mindful of repetitive user boxes.---I'm Spartacus! ^NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

NP, I understand and respect your beliefs, just wanted to highlight that it could be an issue should you decide to run for Admin. Most are ok, but some will probably garner opposition. Also, some of them are really redundant... by having multiple items stating the same/similar thing (such as your being from the US, proud to be an American, born in America, etc) it makes it sound like an ideolog. I have no opinion on whether or not you are, but that it the impression based upon the userboxes. One is a statement, 5 or 6 makes people wonder. I offer this, not as a criticism/attack, but as honest feedback from a person who is very familiar with the intricacies of RfA. Anyway, it is ultimately you choice, but do think about it if you want to become an admin ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Another thing that you might want to consider, right now you favor having split conversations. I know that there are a lot reasons to have split conversations, but I think people who are considering the admin track should keep the conversation on the page where they occured. There are several reasons for this: 1) It makes it easier to vett candidates---the reviewer doesn't have to jump through multiple subpages to review edits. 2) It makes it clear that you responded to comments/questions. I remember getting a referal from a person I respected about a potential admin. I went to that persons talk page and it was littered with vandalism warnings and POV pushing allegations. If it wasn't for the person's recommendation, I would not have dug any deeper. When I dug deeper, I found that it wasn't the candidate who was pushing POV, but rather the other "users" who were apparently socks of the same user that kept getting blocked! The candidate always responded, but on the socks talk page, and often with a note identifying the sockmaster. If he responded on his talk page, it would have been apparent to the casual reader that the trouble maker wasn't the candidate (who is now an admin) but rather the other party. My point is, by not responding on your talk page, the first impression others can make of you will be dictated by what others say on your talk page. If it is incorrect or biased, there is no counterpoint. This can affect many aspects of your wiki relationships ---not just RfA runs---it could impact how others see you in disputes with other editors, conflict resolution, etc.---I'm Spartacus! ^NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

When and if you decide to accept an rfa invite I will gladly offer a co-nom if you like, toherwise you can count on my support during the rfa. 129.108.96.171 (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review of Roger Atkinson Pryor

Hi, I am currently reviewing the above. I have left comments at Talk:Roger Atkinson Pryor/GA1 and would appreciate your input there. I have put the nomination on hold. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I shall be away on holiday for three weeks or so, I am leaving teh artcile on hold, but other GA reviewers are aware and may add further comments or progress the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Butler GA review

Hi, I've put the article on hold to allow issues I've brought up to be addressed. Write on the review page when all is addressed or you have different ideas on my suggestions. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Cleburne GA review

M'lord, 'tis been over two weeks since I reviewed this article - comments need to be addressed lest it be failed... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request!

Thanks for your service as coordinator on WPr Military History for the last six months. Great job, the Wikiproject has matured some more. Lots more needs to be done though.

Would you consider giving a para here on what you planned to do, what you could achieve, what gave you happiness, what irritated you and your suggestions for the road ahead to the new team?

AshLin (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		In gratitude for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from March 2009 to September 2009, please accept this barnstar. --TomStar81 (Talk) 02:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Walpole (1650-1700)

On October 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Walpole (1650-1700), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.

Thanks for the contribution. Halloween DYK?Victuallers (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hey I noticed that you're one of the coordinator of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/South American military history task force. I've been editing some articles this week (Francisco Solano Lopez (politician), Eliza Lynch, Treaty of the Triple Alliance, and War of the Triple Alliance. I've only been at it a week so I'm a bit lost since I don't know how else to improve it. I'd really like to get one of these articles (speacially the War or López one) nominated to FA. Could you help me please in some manner? I have a huge interest in Paraguayan military history and I plan to continue improving Paraguay's articles (I've already been working a lot to try and make anything realted to Paraguay a bit more decent by making templates and such) especially those related to the Triple Alliance war. Any sort of hlp would be hugely appreciated. Thx! Veritiel (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

John H. Kelly

Nice work, never heard of him. Do you have any intelligence of where he was born, parental background, etc? Fergananim (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Anything on his background would be most appreciated! I'm currently writing up bios for County Galway, and Kelly was, and is, a very common name there. Most seem to descend from Tadhg Mór Ua Cellaigh, 36th King of Uí Maine and 1st Chief of the Name. So I'd be interested in determining any connection he might have to the Kellys of Galway. Cheers, Fergananim (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Re question

Thanks for your message. Looking at your editing activity you have a very low edit count to project spaces, not just for the March-Sept 2009 period when you were a coordinator but in total. Obviously your real life must come first (Wikipedia is only a website!) and it couldn't be helped that you had other priorities, but I think you might find it difficult to overcome the impression that you're more interested in getting elected than actually doing the jobs that come with coordinatorship. Your copying this message across 12 user talk pages might also be seen poorly - to be honest it comes across as spamming. A note on the coords talk page would perhaps have been better. I hope you don't take this as discouragement - it's completely up to you if you stand or not - but since you've asked, my opinion is that it might be best to wait another six months and in the meantime get more involved with the project (tagging, assessing, reviewing, contributing to project discussions etc). I think this would answer any questions editors might have about your commitment to Milhist. However, I'm sure others will have different opinions, and if you do decide to stand for election I'd like to wish you the very best of luck :) EyeSerene^talk 09:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Real life issues and limited wiki-available time have always been problems for many valuable wikipedians. However, regarding Milhist coordination, I believe that the most important thing before deciding to candidate would be establishing a doable personal objective for the possible upcoming term. With your amount of available time and abilities taken into consideration, you should be able to propose yourself a goal. If you consider that your goal will help/improve our project, do not hesitate to candidate. Until now, in my opinion the only case in which valuable editors should not candidate, is when he/she is extremely active in main space areas such as article creation and improvement, as a coordinator term is severely limiting their time to do that - article creation and improvement is in my opinion the basis of wiki-progress and development and we should give it as much credit as we can. Personally I have a very good opinion about you and I'm more than sure that you'll be a great coordinator again. However, it's your call! Hope my thoughts were useful! Best, --Eurocopter (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I have to echo what EyeSerene has already told you above. He said what I was going to say much more eloquently than I would have. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

FAC notifications

Please do not spam other wikiprojects with your own handwritten notifications of a FAC. Let the MILHIST coordinators handle this with our templates to be able to avoid allegations of canvassing and impropriety. Thanks, -MBK₀₀₄ 02:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That was for a WP:FAR, which you did by mistake. For FAC it does not request that. Also there are some issues with the FAC that you should address. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You will notice that the FAC was archived. The FAC instructions clearly state that "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." Since you admitted that this was not the case, the FAC was immediately archived. Also, drive-by nominations are frowned upon, the primary editor needs to be the editor to nominate articles when they think they are ready. I suggest that instead of taking someone else's article you should find one to expand and bring up the assessment scale on your own. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Hull Foote

Hi, Lordoliver:

Thank you for noting my addition to the article on Admiral Foote. In truth, I am sorry that I didn't do more. Foote is one of the most interesting persons of his era. I would like to expand the whole article, including a lot of his pre-Civil War activities. I do not do so now because I have too much on my plate. I will come back to it in the future, but I will not object in the slightest if you beat me to it.

PKKloeppel (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be glad for you to help expand the whole article, I very much appreciate any outside work! Thanks Again and Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^The Olive Branch 15:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Good or A Class Article J.E.B. Stuart?

I was wondering if you were ok with me or you nominating J.E.B. Stuart for Good or A Class status. Please reply to my my talk. Thanks and Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^The Olive Branch 15:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't prevent you from nominating any article, but it is my personal policy to never nominate any of the ~300 articles I have written for formal review. Having anonymous people go through and make demands for formatting changes doesn't match my desires for how I want to spend my time on Wikipedia. If reviewers find a problem with one of my articles, they can fix it themselves. Receiving an article classification holds no attraction for me. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: I looked at the edits you just did for Theophilus Holmes and I want to point out some citation problems. First, it is poor practice to use abstract name= parameters, such as A, B, .... Subsequent editors have a really hard time keeping track of which ones are which. It is much more intuitive to use something like name=Lastname or name=LastnameXXX (where XXX is a page number or range of page numbers. Second, the format for the citation should be "Lastname, p. x" or "Lastname, pp. x-y", not "Lastname's, pg. x". You can get some useful tips on editing Civil War articles in my page, User:Hlj/CWediting. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Assessment of Articles

Both articles look good now. I have assessed them as B-class. Keep up the good work! Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 20:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Mate that wasa test

I was gonna revert it myself I aint no sock btw, please see WP:NOASSUMESOCK

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Orris S. Ferry

Hi, Lord Oliver. Can you please check the last sentence in the American Civil War section in Orris S. Ferry? This sentence appears: "Foster resigned from the military, on July 15, 1865". I'm not sure, but I think the name Foster is incorrect, should it be Ferry? Otherwise, the article looks good. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Its official

Glad to hear that. In this case, the so called reform bill has utterly shattered what little family I have left: my dad, a doctor, has been forced to leave El Paso because the public run health care option has annihilated what little income base we had. Now I fear for my future since I am concerned about what kind of money I will have left when the full force of this abortion they dems call reform comes into effect. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Lordoliver. You have new messages at TomStar81's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Orris S. Ferry

On March 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Orris S. Ferry, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

-- Cirt (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator election

Thank you for your support MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. Just a quick note to thank you for your support at the election, very much appreciated. See you around the Milhist pages! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your support on the coordinator elections. – Joe N 14:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)