User talk:Tim O'Doherty

Task force's recommendations

Just wanted to apologies, if at time the discussion at the task force you opened, gets a little chippy. Anyways, whatever proposals the task force ends up agreeing on. They'll (of course) need to then be proposed at Charles III's talkpage. If/when that occurs? I'd recommend the RFC route. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they would always have to be discussed there. Unsurprisingly, the task force hasn't seen much engagement (admittedly I jumped the gun on its creation, but I didn't exactly want to wait for the bureaucratic engine of Wikipedia to take its usual week or so to whirr up either). Maybe pinging editors who frequently comment on royalty talkpages would be a way to generate further involvement: WP:BROY has been notified, so other than that, I think we can only wait for others to participate naturally. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Duke of Windsor

"He abdicated the throne in order to marry divorced Wallis Simpson and became known as the Duke of Windsor."[1]

So no, Edward didnt abdicate in favour of his brother. Tipinen (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of Edward's motives. Doesn't change the fact that he abdicated in favour of George VI. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIII

In the 'articles' section of the project page, should this article be included? DDMS123 (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@DDMS123: Yeah, I think it can. There's no hard-and-fast rule to which ones can and can't; as long as you think that it's within the Charles III scope, it can be included. I know I will have missed a fair few Charles-related articles, so if you find any, you're free to add them whenever you want; the WikiProject is collaborative, after all. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. If I find any more Charles-related articles, I will add them. DDMS123 (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Howdy. I think if part of the RFC question had been "...be proposed to this article...", rather then "...be made to this article...", perhaps it would have a smoother run. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Per Template:Reply to: "The notification will work successfully only if you sign your post in the same edit in which you use this template." DrKay (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah! Yes, I was being stupid. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Sorry for the late reply - I fear it may be too late for that now. Hopefully, given the addition of the proposed changes list, people will be more supportive of the RfC. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

As long as we remember that the taskforce can only recommend changes at Charles III's talkpage, things will go alright. We can't run the risk of the taskforce being seen as trying to be a substitute for the BLP's talkapge :) GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

No, 'course not. But some people, mind-bogglingly, haven't seen, or pretend to not have seen, the advertisements pasted everywhere for CIII. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed. It's quite possible, they aren't taking it (the taskforce) seriously. But, who knows. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

"The pandemic" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The pandemic has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 9 § The pandemic until a consensus is reached. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Reintroducing content

Hello. I have noticed your efforts in elevating the article on Charles III to a higher level of quality, but I felt I needed to make a suggestion. Perhaps when removing parts that are not directly related to Charles but rather associated with one of his organisations you could reintroduce that content on an appropriate secondary page? For example, the paragraph removed in this edit dealt with the activities of the Prince's Foundation. This could be easily incorporated in the article on that foundation (which I've already done). That way, sourced information that could be useful elsewhere will not be lost. Best. Keivan.f^Talk 18:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought about that Keivan.f. Entirely my fault for not carrying it out. It was discussed on CIII and I hope to remedy it over the coming few days and weeks, particularly in regards to the finances and charities. Best wishes, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Charles III, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

DrKay, you should know better. This is POINTy behaviour on your part. Don't throw your toys out of the pram because you did not get your way. You know there is no OR. You know that it isn't overly detailed on the proclamations. How on earth can you think that 3 sentences is excessive? Very disappointing. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Eleven citations is obviously excessive, and is itself indicative of POV problems. Original research is original research and should be expunged. DrKay (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

But it wasn't OR. It wasn't SYNTH. It was the result of absolutely crackpot editing over the last day that led to that fudged conclusion. We should have just edited it down, and, as Keivan.f has shown, there was no need for that POINTy editing on your part. Just bring it to the talk like any other issue. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It was OR. See Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material for guidance. DrKay (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I've seen it. I know what it is. It didn't exist on Charles's page. It was botched editing. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Then, I ask again, which one of the 11 sources says that he is proclaimed king in each realm by the relevant privy or executive council? DrKay (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't strawman. I'm not defending the edits at all. You should have either edited it yourself, or brought it to talk without the unneeded tagging. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll take that as 'none of them'. DrKay (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to be goaded. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Charles III

I see that you are moving toward GA, which a brief glance at his article indicates it should easily pass. I note that the Lead section says absolutely nothing of Charles's interest/participation in sports (He was a keen sportsman in his youth and middle age ?) and arts. Also, the statement that "Charles undertook official duties and engagements on behalf of his mother" could be expanded into a longer sentence with some indication of their scope ("hundreds"? "thousands"?) and nature. Much further down, the banners section headed "as heir apparent" seems overly long. Can it be tightened? Finally, can the press section refer back to the more specific/extensive descriptions above of the coverage/criticism of his marriage, divorce and environmental/health activism? Also the subsection "Reaction to press treatment" begins after the separation from Diana, so maybe it should be called "Later reactions to press treatment", or something like that? Good luck! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree that the "As heir apparent" section is too long. I'll see what I can do there. Maybe a short sentence regarding Charles's relationship with the arts could be included in the lead too, although I'm not sure what that could be. I've no idea of how involved you are with the article, but if you aren't too deeply so, feel free to review it yourself. Regarding the peer review: don't beat yourself up about missing it, it was a complete waste of time. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I also saw your GA plan, and find the article substantial and well sourced. I believe that it would be even better with a few thoughts about image placement. Currently, we have sandwiching of text and displacement of headers which is a bit disturbing. Sometimes fewer images are better. The general placement for images is right, with left only for the few portraits that look to the right, and only if there's room enough until the next header. Just for consideration. Good luck to get a reviewer until 5 May ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I don't like the pictures either. It is what it is though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll try then ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Done - please check, and revert what you don't like. The alt texts would not help a blind person much, but it's not a FAC. I'll perhaps read one of these days, but not today. I don't do GA reviews because English is not my native tongue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

All your changes look good to me. The alt texts can be dealt with later, but they're not top-priority. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Dear Mr. O’Doherty,

I respect your opinion on not listing that there is support for Charles’ beliefs of homeopathy, but why do you think this is so? Surely it would be useful to change the article for the better and at the same time remove bias by stating that “his support for homeopathy and other alternative medicine has been both criticised and praised, the latter to a lesser extent.”

Thank you, Scientelensia (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Scientelensia:, as I have already said, it is undue. A neutral point of view is not pretending that each side has an equal number of supporters, as that would be wrong, and a POV problem itself. A NPOV is making sure each side is represented proportionally and fairly. Charles does not have an equal amount of support and opposition in regards to his view on homeopathy and alternative medicine. It should not be presented as such, because it is not as such. It is misleading. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

But I mentioned that the praise of him was to a leaser extent than the criticism (“both criticised and praised, the latter to a lesser extent”) Scientelensia (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Which makes it a redundant statement. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

How so? Scientelensia (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Not me, but some people support homeopathy and so this much be represented. Scientelensia (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"some people support homeopathy" - not to fall afoul of Godwin's law here, but some people still support Adolf Hitler. Should that be given equal weight in his biography too? I doubt it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Is it not slightly out of context to compare the two? One is someone with a slightly unpopular view, the other is an anti-Semite, white supremacist and a treacherous, vicious and ruthless mass murderer. Can we really compare the two? It seems inappropriate. Finally, Hitler’s article does mention the cult of personality which he fostered so that people supported him, and while it is not given equal weight it is mentioned. I would say that the same should be done in Charles’ article with less-than-equal weight given to people’s support for his pro-homeopathy views, but I will refrain from this for fear of comparing the two. Scientelensia (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

They aren't the same in terms of personality and policy, but in terms of Wikipedia's requirement to accurately weigh viewpoints against each other, it is the exact same principle. The point, however vividly illustrated, is that we should not treat minority viewpoints as if they are equal to majority viewpoints. That is the essence of a neutral point of view. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

While you may be in some way right, it is still necessary to explain to readers that he had not been criticised by everyone as the article makes it suggest. While I agree that one should not treat minority viewpoints as if they are equal to majority viewpoints, minority viewpoints should still be documented and accounted for. Please see my message below also. Scientelensia (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The article doesn't suggest that everyone disagrees with him. It says "has been criticised", not "is universally condemned". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, I see your point, but the reading of the article suggests that there is little agreement with him which is not the case. While you, me and many others are against homeopathic measures (as I assume you are), the ‘balance’ should still be reflected, for want of a better word. Scientelensia (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

As Godwin’s article itself actually says:

“Godwin's law itself can be applied mistakenly or abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, when fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparison made by the argument is appropriate. Godwin himself has also criticized the overapplication of the law, claiming that it does not articulate a fallacy, but rather is intended to reduce the frequency of inappropriate and hyperbolic comparisons. Godwin wrote that "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler to think a bit harder about the Holocaust."”

I believe that, with all due respect, you may be applying the law erroneously. Scientelensia (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

You've spectacularly missed the point here. You're not one to talk about "fallacious[]" "diversion" with that copy-paste fest. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

You say that this is the case but can provide no valid argument that contradicts my points rather than to insult my reasoning with no logic. Explain if you please why I am not one to talk about such things, or is it that I have a different opinion to you. Which point have I spectacularly missed? Please strike your comments or explain, and be aware that while we differ we both are trying to improve this encyclopaedia. Scientelensia (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I have provided reasoning. I understand that you are concerned about the neutrality of the article, but your proposed addition could compromise the NPOV, rather than help it. I apologise for my cynicism, but this will be my bottom line: this is a discussion for Charles's article, not my personal talk page. By all means, take your case there, and we'll see what other editors think. Bear in mind that this is a GA candidate, and we can't afford to be haphazard with editing here. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, let us see what others see. If they agree, I will concede.

Good night to you :) Scientelensia (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

G'night. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I have still not been notified as to why this is so… Scientelensia (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

That there is a redundant statement I mean. Scientelensia (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that, continued attempts (not by you) to change info in the fourth paragraph (which have been repeatedly reverted by different editors), is going to end up preventing the Charles III page from obtaining GA status. The editors who want changes in paragraph four, should be starting a discussion about it, on Charles III's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

While I support the changes in principle, we can't have edit warring on a GAC. We should have a discussion on it, separate from the RfC. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup, phase three of WP:BRD :) GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you better have a talk with Mies. I'm aware of his conversations at his talkpage & 109etc's talkpage & I'm concerned that he's going to go overboard, with his passions for the topic-in-question. I'm a patient fellow, but I don't think DrKay or Ceila (just to name two editors) are as patient as I. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Charles III

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Charles III you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RonaldDuncan -- RonaldDuncan (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Cheers, @RonaldDuncan. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Not My King

Hello, Tim O'Doherty

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Zippybonzo, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Not My King, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Zippybonzo}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Zippybonzo "Not My King" was and is a very common phrase that protesters use in opposition to the monarchy. Any Google search will reveal that. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I cannot see how it relates to the article in any way. Thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Because people were arrested in droves for protesting in Scotland and across the UK upon the death of the queen. It's perhaps the highest profile public "reaction to the death of Elizabeth II". 06:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s not mentioned anywhere in the article, and the title would be better used for a redirect to a page relating to protest of the British monarchy. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Zippybonzo - Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I’ve removed the Prod tag. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Coronation of Edward VI

On 6 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Coronation of Edward VI, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Edward VI was only nine years old on the day of his coronation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Coronation of Edward VI. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Coronation of Edward VI), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Coronation of George II and Caroline

On 6 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Coronation of George II and Caroline, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during her coronation, Caroline of Ansbach's dress was reportedly so covered in jewels that she required a pulley to lift her skirt for her to kneel? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Coronation of George II of Great Britain and Caroline. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Coronation of George II and Caroline), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Charles III and Camilla

You haven't bothered replying on Talk:Charles III despite me tagging you after starting the discussion. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Please reply to the discussion, if you fail to within a few days I'll have to complain about you to the admins. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

For what? I'm perfectly within my right to not comment on a section, especially when I'm already very involved on that talkpage. I'm not breaking any rules by doing so; I have other priorities to sort out first, like the AN/I post. BTW, your mentioning 1986 is redundant: two paragraphs down from your edit, it says "In an interview in the film, Charles confirmed his own extramarital affair with Camilla, saying that he had rekindled their association in 1986, only after his marriage to Diana had "irretrievably broken down"". So, what gives? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Charles insiting something doesn't mean its true. A person won't necessarily say something that's damaging to them. You seem to be preferring one version of when the affair happened. You have been able to reply to other discussions, so clearly you have enough time. You're also showing ownership behaviour at the article.

You're entirely mistaken if you think you do not need to reply, I've complained about users like you who avoid discussions before and they've been blocked. Also see WP:NEGOTIATE. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Your scare tactics aren't going to work on me. I advise you to take care when writing in such a highly visible biography, and to make sure the quality of your writing is good too: "sources close to Parker Bowles" is editorial and WEASELy. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

If you fail to cooperate and discuss, then you have to be warned. You deliberately avoided the discussion. And I suggest you avoid doing that in future. When you disagree with someone, discusss. It's required of you per Wikipedia policies.

There was also nothing WEASELy about "sources close to Parker Bowles", newspapers often keep their sources anonymous to avoid backlash to them. It's not a new practice. Editorial means "an article in a newspaper, usually written by the head of the newspaper (editor), giving an opinion on an important subject". This is not an opinion, but a quotation. You are incorrectly using words and don't even know what editorial means. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I haven't avoided any discussion, proven by the fact I'm talking to you. Saying I have done "deliberately" is a WP:AGF violation. "Sources close to" is editorial language. It's what newspapers like The Sun and The Daily Mail use when they can't support what they are saying (both are unreliable sources per WP:RSPSS), and "sources close to" is absolutely WP:WEASEL; this is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid. It's an "" waiting to happen. I edit Wikipedia in my free time: you don't get to tell me how to spend my free time, and you don't threaten to "complain about [me] to the admins". BTW, I've been told to take a break from Charles's talk page by an admin; so you can't "complain" about my decreased participation there. Wait for others' input, because we aren't going to agree about this. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (More directly: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Multiple issues at Charles III/Talk:Charles III ₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)