User talk:Tim O'Doherty/Archive 1

Copyright problem: John Shadworth
Hello Tim O&#39;Doherty! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as John Shadworth, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386-1421/member/shadworth-john-1430, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
 * Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:John Shadworth and send an email with confirmation of permission to "[mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org ]". Make sure they quote the exact page name, John Shadworth, in their email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org ] or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:John Shadworth. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:John Shadworth with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

See Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:John Shadworth saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello. I am so sorry for this. I genuinely did not realise. Feel free to remove anything problematic. Again, I am very, very sorry. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

John Walcote moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, John Walcote, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:John Walcote has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:John Walcote. Thanks! Curbon7 (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Queenie (Wilson novel)
Hello, Tim O&#39;Doherty. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Queenie (Wilson novel), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Salmonella-in-eggs controversy has been accepted
 Salmonella-in-eggs controversy, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Salmonella-in-eggs_controversy help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Theroadislong (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:John Walcote
Hello, Tim O&#39;Doherty. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:John Walcote, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Good article nominations
Hi Tim O&#39;Doherty, thank you for your assistance in reviewing at WP:Good article nominations. When you pass a nomination, please remember to add it to the appropriate list of Good articles. All steps that should be taken are listed at WP:GAN/I. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, CMD (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Done! Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I hope the slightly byzantine process does not put you off future reviews. CMD (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not at all! It was my first review, so it didn't go quite as smoothly as I would have liked, given I forgot a step in the frenzied editing that followed the pass mark. Nevertheless, whenever a nomination that interests me pops up, I'll have a look at it. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Coronations
I think I've added all I can to the George III article, but feel free to chip in if you find anything else.

A couple more sources for your George II project:
 * Handel and the English Chapel Royal - Page 255 onwards
 * A Companion for the Approaching Grand Festival: Containing a particular account of the Solemnities used at the Coronation of His Sacred Majesty King George the Second

Best regards and a very merry Christmas; Alansplodge (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. The George III coronation article looks good to me. Merry Christmas to you too, and Happy New Year as well as I'll be on a WikiBreak at the beginning of 2023. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

RFC tag
I just noticed. You forgot to put a RFC tag in place. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I thought about that, but none of the other RfCs on WP:VPR seemed to have one :/ Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The opposition to bringing consistency to the bios-in-question, is growing. It's so frustrating that the Naming Convention on this topic, has been ignored these last few years. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I know. Half the people asking questions don't even seem to have read the proposal either. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

British monarch's successor
FWIW, I reverted the changes to the British monarch bios, in the children's section of the infoboxes of George I, Frederick, George III, Victoria, Edward VII, George V & George VI. I did this, when I noticed the reverting at Elizabeth II's bio infobox. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The infobox of Elizabeth II says "Charles III, King of the United Kingdom". In the edit summary I cited those articles as a justification. Should we follow the format "[NAME] [ORDINAL]" (e.g. Charles III) or "[NAME] [ORDINAL], King/Queen of the [KINGDOM]" (e.g. Charles III, King of the United Kingdom)? Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * JTLYK, Elizabeth II's infobox has been changed to remove ", King of the United Kingdom". Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Bekoyen removed it, from Elizabeth II's infobox. Who's JTLYK? GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know Векочел removed it. JTLYK is an initialism for "just to let you know", as in "you may want to know this as it is relevant to our discussion". Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You can restore them if you like, but my guess is editors who opposed the "Name # of country" article title style, will likely oppose the changes in the infobox content. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's probably unwise to do so. The proposal this week failed overwhelmingly, and overall, I'm not too fussed either way. I wanted the infoboxes to be consistent, now they are. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Queenie (Wilson novel)


Hello, Tim O&#39;Doherty. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Queenie".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I would've requested deletion for it anyway as I felt that it wasn't coming together. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Edward II image
I saw that you changed the image for the Edward II article back to what it was before, and while I do not agree with said edit, I do advise you to make sure the alt for the image is updated as well. Also, please make sure the licensing on the new image is appropriate; this would have been taken care of at FAC, but this image was not in use at the time. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion on the talk page about the image. Feel free to participate. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

English, Scottish & Irish monarchs
Howdy. I think it would be better for you to open up an RFC concerning whether or not we should show the Scottish regnal number in the infoboxes of Scottish monarchs who are also English & Irish monarchs. Those Scottish numbers have been in the infoboxes of Charles I, Charles II, James II & VII, Mary II, William III & II & Anne, for several years. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, but not in the article titles... Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter about the article titles. That's why we use pipelinks or redirects. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It does matter a bit. When the rationale for changing them back is "it ignores Scotland", it's a bit of a flimsy argument when the article titles "ignore Scotland" too. The double regnal numbers in the infobox are just remnants of when the articles were double-numbered too and after moving the infoboxes were never fixed; I'm just updating them after 5 years. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I recommend you get a consensus to make such changes. Indeed, perhaps we need to set a guideline for these situations, as I see an even bigger oddity at the infoboxes of Portuguese monarchs, who are also Spanish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Where do you suggest? WP:BROY? Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I was thinking an RFC at WP:ROY, as it should be about all monarchs who have more then one regnal number. How do we handle them as predecessors & successors in another monarch's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It gets very tricky on some though. If we go ahead with double numbering in infoboxes for, say, British monarchs, we'd have to be consistent with it all the way through; take William III as an example. He was king of England, Scotland, and Ireland, which would make him William III, II and I in the infobox. Also, do we include Normandy? Some people count him as William IV of Normandy too. Where does it end? We'd have infoboxes with Elizabeth I and II, Edward VIII and II, Edward VII and I, William IV and III, etc. What about Commonwealth realms? Is it Charles III and I, (III of England, Scotland, and Wales, I of Canada, Australia, etc.) Where does Northern Ireland fit into this? What about the page titles, why are they not William III and II, James II and VII, etc.? Here you argue against that system, which seems contradictory to what you want in the infoboxes.
 * All in all, I think that this would be a huge, inconsistent mess. We should just use the ordinal for the country that they are best known as being the monarch of. We would do well to follow WP:SOVEREIGN, which, whilst on article titling, has good advice on infoboxes too: "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; Philip II of Spain, not Philip I of Portugal."
 * Regards, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting we change article titles. My concern is how we present the names in the infoboxes of their successors & predecessors. I believe we can use kingdoms as the bar-level & not worry about (for examples) duchies, electorates, etc. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I know you're not. I'm just saying we shouldn't deviate from the already good article titles to something different in the infobox. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't we? We have redirects. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Why should the names be different in infoboxes? We already have good, recognisable titles, why shouldn't we use them? Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, I recommend you bring this topic to WP:ROY, as it concerns all monarchs who have more then one regnal number. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Elizabeth II & Charles III are known by only 'one' regnal number. They're not known as Elizabeth I & Charles I, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand & any of the other former/current non-UK Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if they're not known as it, it still stands to reason that they were the first Elizabeth to rule over Australia, the first Charles to rule over Canada, etc. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Those countries used "II" for Elizabeth & "III" for Charles, in their proclamations, however. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * By Edward I and VII, I suspect you're referring to Edward VII, rather then Edward I of England? -- GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe you linked to the wrong Edward, in the RFC discussion. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, so I did. Thanks for pointing it out. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like a consensus has been reached now. There haven't been any votes for over 2 days and no new discussion for a week. Might be time to think about closing it. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Let it keep going until the RFC tag expires, which will be in early March. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:John Walcote


Hello, Tim O&#39;Doherty. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "John Walcote".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Charlie 3
Howdy. There's a way to keep your example infobox from sliding down (thus it wouldn't seem to be a part of the following separate discussion), each time somebody posts. But I forget how to do it. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Got it figured out. We have to post 'below' the example infobox. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Charlie 3 (2)
You've already broken the three-revert rule on this article. Please note that you cannot perform more than 3 reverts on any article in a 24-hour period, regardless of the reverts being partial, to different parts of the article, to different content or of edits by different editors. DrKay (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Which edits? I count two, maybe three depending on some very "partial" reverts. If you count my "2005" edit, I backed it up with a source, which you requested in your edit summary. Additionally, only one has an undo tag, and I sought consensus when asked to do so. If I have broken this rule, I apologise, though. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're quite right. I've mistaken the reverts on the 26th for more recent ones by not looking at the dates with sufficient care. DrKay (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

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&#39;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."

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&#39;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)


 * 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&#39;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&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 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&#39;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&#39;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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_pandemic&redirect=no 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  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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It was OR. See No original research 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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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)


 * , 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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Not My King
Hello, Tim O&#39;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) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit Edit the page]
 * 2) Remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) Click the  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. And remember to sign your reply with. Thanks!

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

Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;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&#39;Doherty (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I cannot see how it relates to the article in any way. Thanks, Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;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&#39;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 &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 06:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Zippybonzo - Done. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I’ve removed the Prod tag. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 06:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Coronation of Edward VI
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Coronation of George II and Caroline
&mdash; 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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;Doherty (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

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

May 2022
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)