User talk:Randall O

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

John Leslie, 1st Duke of Rothes
You recently reverted a correction that I made to John Leslie, 1st Duke of Rothes. You could have the correct answer, but could you please back it up with a reference? Working on the list in Earl of Crawford, there does not appear to be a John Lindsay, 10th Earl of Crawford. The 10th Earl of Crawford is David Lindsay, 10th Earl of Crawford. There is a John Leslie as the John Lindsay, 17th Earl of Crawford, 1st Earl of Lindsay, as well as the 19th and 20th Earl of Crawford. If your change is correct, then the Earl of Crawford page also needs to get updated because it is wrong. Otherwise, I move to keep the number at 17 where I had it which is most likely to be correct because of the timeframe. JRP 00:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The man in question was the son of Alexander Lindsay. His mother was Jean Sinclair, she was the daughter of Henry Sinclair 3 Lord Sinclair. These people in question are my kin, i know the history well. The Royal genealogy is linked to these people. I have a lot more information, but it will be copyrighted. I wrote the first story on the first Duke of Rothes. Under the number 226. I also wrote the item on Joan Chaworth.
 * I certainly believe you, but the existing Wikipedia page is pretty clear that there isn't a 10th Earl of Crawford named John Lindsay. I just want the right information in the article. Can you provide a resource that says definitively one way or the other. The Earl of Crawford page doesn't have a good reference either so I have no idea how trustworthy that list is. JRP 01:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I will give at least 3 references for my statement. Give me a day or two. Many members of the nobility were very related to each other. On the 5th Earl of Rothes, his step-brothers were involed in the murder of Cardinal Beaton. But cardinal Beaton was also their kin. On Sir James Ormond, he was the brother of John Ormond esq. of Alfreton. The name was spelled Ormond. This is the spelling on the brass to him in Alfreton church. But at times, it was in later years spelled Ormand.
 * You may return the title 17 Earl of Crawford, because a mistake was made by a National Trust site and a painting of the family was listed wrong. This should have been found earlier, being there were tours of the castle with this mistake repeated. Most likely this was caused by the names being the same. This is one that slipped by me and them.
 * That's excellent. I'm sorry for being persistent, I just like lists and when they are consistent. While you are at it, can you check out James Ormonde and help clarify Piers Butler, 1st Earl of Ormonde or Piers Butler, 7th Earl of Ormonde? According to the list (which again, I can't verify) Earl of Ormonde, Piers Butler was the 1st Earl of the third creation, because of some maddness with Thomas Boleyn, 1st Earl of Ormonde. You changed it to 7th which the list claims to be Thomas Butler. Should I change this back also? JRP 01:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Thomas was the brother of John 6th Earl of Ormonde, Thomas was the 7th Earl of Ormonde. Thomas nearly always signed his name as Thomas Ormond. That made Piers 8th Earl of Ormonde. John 6th Earl died in the Holy Land, he had earlier met with the Pope in Rome. Thomas had given Sir James Ormond, power of attorney over his estates in Ireland. Thomas Boleyn or Bullin, was kin to Joan Chaworth. The Duke of Somerset met his fate with Thomas Boleyn on the chopping block. Lady Anne Stahope was the wife of the Duke of Somerset. This can be seen on her tomb which shows the different coats of arms of the allied families. Her Great-grandson Philip was created Earl of Chesterfield.
 * Got it. Can you update Earl of Ormonde with that information since that must be wrong. I'll make the note that Piers was 8th Earl... (You changed the link to 7th, I think.) Also, when you start a line with spaces, it makes the comments really hard to read. Try starting them with ":" to do nesting, instead. :) JRP

John Hutchinson
Thanks for the additions you made to John Hutchinson. If you want to upload a photo, there is an option to upload a file on the left tool bar.--nixie 02:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC) The rarely stated assertion that John Ormond of Alfreton was the son of John Butler, 6th Earl of Ormond(e), is made fully and in: The Butler family of Ireland, Earls of Ormond, etc., Ninth Volume: ‘The First To Seventh Earl of Ormond'. T. Blake Butler Printed privately about 1962

John and James's mother is there given as Reynalda, daughter of Turlogh "The Brown" O'Brien, King of Thomond (d 1460).

Image tagging for Image:IBjdo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:IBjdo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:OrmondI_300_thumb.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:OrmondI_300_thumb.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Major General William M.Miley.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Major General William M.Miley.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ron Ormond
Please see Talk:Film producer to join in a discussion about why I removed this entry. Thanks. Notinasnaid 10:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir John Byron
With all due repect the article on Sir John Byron, largely written by yourself, appears to have significant inaccuracy. The Sir John Byron to whom I believe you refer died in 1576, and it was his grandson, also called Sir John Byron, that sired the Margaret who went on to marry Thomas Hutchinson (MP); it was this latter John Byron's grandson (not son), who went on to become John Byron, 1st Baron Byron, as named in the article.

I have not edited the article, since I would first be interested to know what sources you were using; mine were the book 'Memoirs of the Life of Colonel Hutchison' by Lucy Hutchinson, and a website on the history of Nottinghamshire

Matisia 20:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes this is the Sir John Byron, of Clayton. Who was knighted, by Elizabeth I of England in 1579. His wife was Alice Strelleye. I forgot to create an article on his father. He was also named, Sir John Byron. I have paintings of all of them. These paintings will be posted later. Also more will be added, to each article. Most of the birth dates, i list are from the tombs and other sources. Some of my sources, are my family history, and several books i have on the English Civil Wars.


 * Thanks; I look forward to seeing the article on the father!


 * Matisia 07:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources
Thanks for your work on articles about English nobility. I assume that the information which you added is coming from solid sources, but you should name them so that other users can verify the information and readers can get reliable information from your articles. This is a basic Wikipedia policy, you can read about it here or here. See Citing sources if you are unsure about the format of the citations. And please, when other users correct typos or add appropriate categories to an article, don't revert them to insert the errors again. Regards, High on a tree 14:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

David Omand
Hi. Some nice work, but please check your information in fields with which you are less familiar :-) Sir David Omand really does spell his name that way: http://www.windsorleadershiptrust.org.uk/en/1/domand.html Myopic Bookworm 14:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing the unsigned comment on my page is from you. I gave you one reference above. On the Home Office Site Ormand gets no matches, Omand gets two. On the Downing Street website Ormand gets no matches, Omand gets eight. Here is the notice of his  security appointment, and here is the announcement of his appointment to the Natural History museum. In the 2002 edition of Who's Who he is listed as OMAND, Sir David (Bruce), in between Julia OMAN and Margaret O'MARA. I think that's enough evidence. Myopic Bookworm 10:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * PS To sign and date a comment, put four tildes (~ x4). It's nicer that way. Myopic Bookworm 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To anyone reading this, here is my case. http://cryptome.sabotage.org/da-notice.htm#committee  His name here, is Sir David Bruce Ormand. The site speaks for itself.
 * The site you mention does indeed speak for itself. It is not an "official" British site, it is an amateur website for intelligence and security enthusiasts. Clearly they cannot spell accurately. Checking means finding further reliable verification of your information, not just believing the first website you stumble across. The original government site from which they copied their information several years ago has now been updated, so the information is no longer there to be verified. I have given links to current, not outdated sites, and to official, not to amateur sites: also to a respected print publication (Who's Who). Have you actually looked at any of them? Here is Sir David Omand's current web page at the Natural History museum. Myopic Bookworm 09:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That,s nice but i have just as many sites with the Ormand spelling. Also the point, is why were there so many sites with different spellings of the name. I did not stumble across this information, as you inplied. As i said, it was on several different sites. I even checked it on the Home Office site, in the year 2000. It was spelled Ormand there as well. This was an offical site at that time.
 * The reason why so many sites have the wrong spelling is that Omand is a relatively unusual name. All it takes is one person to assume that it must be a mistake for Ormand, and then lots of other people will copy the information without checking. Wikipedia aims to be better than that: hence the constant requests for citations and references. Sheer number of websites is no guide if they are all lifting information from each other, which is why it is worth checking current websites, ignoring the ones which look a bit crappy, and try to find printed sources as well. No one can verify what you say about what the Home Office website said seven years ago. I once did a survey and found several thousand websites which referred to a well known southern English town as Southapton, and I can guarantee you'll find loads of information about someone called "Ghandi". Myopic Bookworm 13:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I found them on my other hardrive, here are a few http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/626455.stm also the the UK Gov. site http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/foi/pdf/chequers0106.pdf and many others. I think they need a few proof readers. Many are offical sites of the UK Goverment.

A tag has been placed on Ormand Cup, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This article about an award does not assert the notability or importance of the subject.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Realkyhick 08:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I did indeed read the whole article that you wrote, which did not take very long as it is short and repetitive. The award you have written about is for a local boating club, and a Google search returned a whopping five results. The award does not pass [WP:NOTE|Wikipedia notability standards]] by any means, and should be deleted. Realkyhick 15:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ormand Cup
Ormand Cup, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Ormand Cup satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Ormand Cup and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Ormand Cup during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Realkyhick 21:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to find that your article has been deleted. Perhaps you could create an article about Dr. Ormand, and include information about the cup there?

Matisia 07:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

John Hutchinson
Given that you have worked extensively on the article about Colonel John Hutchinson, I was wondering whether you had or knew where to get more information about his children. More specifically, is there any information available as to when his eldest son, Thomas (b.1639), died, and what children said Thomas might have had? Matisia 09:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Drumtar
Hello. Thank you for your input on the drumtar deletion discussion. Non-notability is a criterion for deletion of articles, and without sources documenting this instrument, we can only conclude that it is non-notable. You believe the article should be kept. Can you find any sources (magazine articles, reputable websites, books, etc.) about this instrument that show that it is notable? Nick Graves 09:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hornes
Hi Randall,

Regarding my removal of the image and the link from the article for the Prince Maximilian, there are a few issues. One, the picture has no caption and is seemingly just a stamp or something, which doesn't particularly deserve such prominence for an article about a person and two, the link is in the German language and has no summary, etc, whatsoever. For instance, if the article on The Breakers were to have a link and an image, with no caption, of the Atlantic Ocean (which is behind it but only very slightly pertinent to the article), then I would remove them both. Perhaps if that website contains information on the prince a direct link to a page would work with a note that it is in the German language. There is little reason for the image though. Charles 05:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:1856 armoiries.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1856 armoiries.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Francis Cyrus Hobart Hutchinson
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Francis Cyrus Hobart Hutchinson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Francis Cyrus Hobart Hutchinson. --Michael WhiteT&middot;C 18:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Francis Cyrus Hobart Hutchinson
I have nominated Francis Cyrus Hobart Hutchinson, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Francis Cyrus Hobart Hutchinson. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. --Michael WhiteT&middot;C 16:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/Randall O for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --Michael WhiteT&middot;C 00:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Helpme
user Michael White has removed my references from the page Francis Cyrus Hobart Hutchinson, and now he claims my sister who just joined last night, is a Sock poppet. He has removed her comment, as well. What is going on here. Users may join when ever they want. To remove two people at once, because they use the same line. I think he only wants his comments on here. He also said, i did not write any articles. I have written several articles Arthur Stanhope. M.P. Sir Thomas Hutchinson. M.P. nad many others. 66.19.114.161 (talk) 08:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Randall O

Proposed deletion of Margaret of Thormond
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Margaret of Thormond, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Jeepday (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:1856 armoiries.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:1856 armoiries.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to General contractor
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it.

Keith D (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 06:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Ormond
Could you please give your reasons for undoing my edit at the dab's talk page, link given above. Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Von Hornes coat of arms.jpg


The file File:Von Hornes coat of arms.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)