Select Page

User talk:Tim O'Doherty

Nomination of 2020s in history for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2020s in history is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decades in history until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sm8900 (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sm8900 - Why am I receiving this message? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it was an error, i thought you had made some non-minor edits on this topic. sorry about that. it appears your edits on this were only minor ones. Sm8900 (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

@Tim O'Doherty I hope your New Year is going well. I wanted to reach out to you regarding two points:

  • Do you have any advice on how I can make my suggestions at FAC and PR more constructive and helpful to other editors?

I understand you haven’t been active on WP much recently, but I would still greatly value your thoughts on the above. I also look forward to any future collaborations. Best regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what advice I can give to be more helpful. If you've addressed all reviewers' comments from the last FAC it might be ready: if not, then not. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty
Do you have anything to say to the first point?
Do you have any advice on how I can make my suggestions at FAC and PR more constructive and helpful to other editors? I ask this since you have been a great reviewer and I feel that I can learn from you. MSincccc (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you make your comments "more constructive and helpful". Maybe focus on one issue, such as a source review. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The matter is that the users Tim riley and SchroCat want me to improve my comments when it comes to suggesting omissions, errors and improvements for an article.
  • I fear MSincccc has yet to understand that a reviewer's job is not to say how s/he would have written the article but rather to point out errors, omissions and infelicities and suggest emendations.
  • You may like to study the suggestions from all three of the previous reviewers. They do not say "I'd phrase it this way and so should you", but point out, most helpfully, omissions, ambiguities, confusing phrasing and factual inaccuracies. That is helpful. Calling for "initially" rather than "at first" and similar points of personal preference in drafting is not.
You can also take a look at my comments here and here for reference.
@Tim O'Doherty Hence I thought that you could advise me on the same given your experience at FAC and PR. I hope that I am clear. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty What do you have to say to the above? You have yourself conducted a number of constructive reviews. Looking forward to knowing your response. Thereafter, I will not bother you regarding this. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those comments seem to point out the issues themselves. Don't base comments on personal preference. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty Should an article put up at FAC comprise false titles? The nominator feels that it is fine for an article to have them:
I prefer the less cluttered version without the "the" and I don't see anything in MOS that prohibits it. It also has not been an issue at previous FACs.
Notable audience members included Kate Moss, Bianca Jagger, Nicholas Coleridge, and Domenico de Sole, then-CEO of Gucci.
I also suggested describing the first three people mentioned in the sentence above in short such as "the model ..., the activist..."
but the nominator does not feel so. I will not press on false titles in the article any further if you feel the same as the nominator. Looking forward to your opinion on this. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not part of the MoS, so it's really up to the nominator. They're not very good but you shouldn't oppose over it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lettuce

Where, please, is this already stated? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What, that Truss resigned the week following the setting-up of the lettuce stunt? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No; the statement that you removed in the diff I linked to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Truss talk page, where it really should have been anyway. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to discussion

@Tim O'Doherty You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Princess Charlotte of Wales (born 2015). Regards. MSincccc (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty You are invited to join the discussion on the "Personal interests" section at Talk: William, Prince of Wales. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty Do you think that trivial content has a place on the articles of living persons? A user assets that a person's interests in films and television should be added to the article. That is the subject of the above mentioned discussion. If you are interested, you are welcome to comment. Looking forward to your opinion on this. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reach-out

@Tim O'Doherty Do you think it is possible to get the article on Donald Trump to FA-class since it's among the articles you wish to bring to FA status? Also could you please suggest any ways to improve the article on Ivanka Trump to FA-class? Your suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any article that is notable can get to FA. If you'd like to get an article to that level, WP:FA? is a good checklist. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. By the way, @Tim O'Doherty will you be able to review the article Premiership of Liz Truss for GA if I nominate it presently? If yes, please do let me know so that we can proceed. I would like to enhance its quality. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might be able to have a look at it, yes. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty [1] I have nominated the article for GAN. Looking forward to the review discussion. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty Queries below.
  • Other key appointments included that of Thérèse Coffey as Deputy Prime Minister and Health Secretary, Brandon Lewis as Justice Secretary, Nadhim Zahawi as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Chris Heaton-Harris as Northern Ireland Secretary, Jake Berry as Minister without Portfolio and Party chairman, Jacob Rees-Mogg as Business Secretary, Simon Clarke as Housing Secretary, Kemi Badenoch as Secretary of State for International Trade, Chloe Smith as Work and Pensions Secretary, Kit Malthouse as Education Secretary, Ranil Jayawardena as Environment Secretary, Anne-Marie Trevelyan as Transport Secretary, and Michael Ellis as Attorney General for England and Wales.[21] Truss retained Ben Wallace as Defence Secretary, Alok Sharma as President for COP26, Alister Jack as Scotland Secretary, Robert Buckland as Wales Secretary, and James Heappey as Minister of State for the Armed Forces and Veterans[a][22] How do I get rid of the WP:SEAOFBLUE issue in this paragraph? Do you mean to say that the posts can be de-linked? (I realise that some persons have been overlinked here which I will take care of.)
  • The chronology is all over the place in "Conservative leadership bid": the first paragraph jumps to the hustings, before going back to the parliamentary votes, and then forward (again) to her suddenly winning and becoming prime minister (sort of, and which is not part of the Tory leadership race mentioned in the section heading). Could you please suggest a solution?
Looking forward to your responses to the above. Hopefully you can guide me. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1.) Yes, things should be de-linked.
2.) As I suggested in the GAN, I think a rewrite is the best course of action for the entire article, but certainly the only way to fix that issue in that section would be to have it rewritten. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty Thanks for the above response.
  • Could you please let me know what should be de-linked and what should be not?
  • Will it be possible for you to take a look at the article Victoria Starmer for GA if I nominate it presently? The sources used are reliable and the references are properly formatted. I would like to enhance its quality.
Looking forward to your responses. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really interested in Starmer's wife. If you can find someone else, go ahead, or just nominate it as usual. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty Do you currently have any article on which we can collaborate? If so, please do let me know. It can also be a new article created from scratch. I understand that you are not very active on WP at present, but I would be happy to collaborate. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only article I'm really working on at the moment is Rishi Sunak's. I think I'm probably better working on that one alone, but let me know if you have a proposition. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty The most I can do for you regarding the Sunak article is review it for GA and possibly suggest improvements at its FAC and PR. I leave that to you. Instead, I want to collaborate on another article, ideally one we can build from scratch or from almost nothing and take to FA/GA. I want to collaborate fully on this and work with you throughout the process. The choice of topic is yours. Looking forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of many "new" articles that should be started. Wikipedia's already quite saturated. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty What do you think about collaborating on bringing the article Charles III to FA-class? I will prepare the draft and you can chip in with your valuable inputs. We could give it a try together. Looking forward to response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't have very many good sources on Charles. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty But we could give it a try, right? We do have books on him. Looking forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There exist books on him yes, but books which I don't have. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty You can download the PDF version of The Making of a King: King Charles III by Robert Hardman from the website OceanOfPDF for free. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty Please let me know if you have received the book. Also, if there are any other articles we can collaborate on, do let me know. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One book won't cut it for FAC. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty You can also find the free PDF versions of the following books on Charles III on the same website:
I suppose four biographies of Charles by well-known authors will suffice along with a handful of sources from newspaper and web archives. Looking forward to knowing from you. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty I presume the four biographies referenced above (available for free in PDF format online) should suffice. We could collaborate on drafting the article for FAC. Looking forward to knowing your response. MSincccc (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New draft

@Tim O'Doherty, You are invited to make revisions/changes to this draft of Charles III's article. With the use of the book sources (four in total; mentioned in the above discussion), we can hopefully take the article to greater standards. Anticipating our future collaborations. Regards. Velworth (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will keep in mind. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty The page has been moved to User:MSincccc/sandbox with Tim O'Doherty. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty I have nominated the article David Cameron for GA. If it is convenient, please share your suggestions for improvement at GAN. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty I have nominated the article Royal Foundation for GA. If it is convenient, please share your suggestions for improvement at GAN. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty I thought it would be appropriate to notify you, as you have previously reviewed articles in the same subject area for GA. Also, Keivan.f is a co-nominator. No rush, though. Please do let me know if you can take on the review when you have the proper time. Looking forward to our future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're doing well and in great spirits. User Wehwalt has begun reviewing the article Royal Foundation. I hope you don’t mind. By the way, I’ve been keeping up with your work on Rishi Sunak's article and look forward to its GAN and potential FA. Thank you for your time.
Best regards, MSincccc (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rishi Sunak

You are invited to join this discussion, in which you might be involved, at Talk: Rishi Sunak. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty The disputed information in the article is trivial. You were the one who initially removed that content. Your input in the discussion would be appreciated. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty Thank you for your suggestions on improving Cameron's article. I will address them when I have the time.
By the way, I don’t think the trivial details in Sunak’s article should be a concern (given that you are currently rewriting the entire piece), but do you believe those details are truly necessary? The discussion I initiated on the matter has not reached a clear consensus. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome and no, I don't see them as necessary, but I also don't see the use in tying ourselves up in knots about it. Best - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

I currently have the following books on Charles III:

  • Born to Be King: Prince Charles on Planet Windsor – Catherine Mayer
  • Our King: Charles III: The Man and the Monarch Revealed – Robert Jobson
  • The Making of a King: King Charles III and the Modern Monarchy – Robert Hardman
  • Monarch: The Life and Reign of Elizabeth II – Robert Lacey

Could you guide me on how best to go through these books effectively and draft the article? Looking forward to your advice. Best regards. MSincccc (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have as much experience as you in citing information from book sources. Additionally, I am continually learning about FAC-level writing with each passing day. Your guidance would be greatly appreciated, and I am grateful for this collaboration. In the meantime, I can share the text of the book with you if needed. Best regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delayed response, I haven't really been keeping up with this place.
The best way to reference a book is really just to read them cover-to-cover whilst bookmarking the important parts. An index works in a pinch but I wouldn't recommend that. It's best to do it fully and properly so you have the most comprehensive and well-rounded article possible.
As for the mechanics of citing the source, instructions are here.
Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kategate, if it is convenient for you to do so. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter!

Wishing you peace, joy, and renewal this Easter season. Thank you for all you do to keep Wikipedia growing and thriving.

Stay well, and happy editing! MSincccc (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MSincccc and the same. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]