User talk:Tim O'Doherty: Difference between revisions

Archives

Nov 2021–May 2023 May 2023–Oct 2023 Oct 2023–Jan 2024

@Tim O'Doherty Just writing here to know whether you are fine. Last week was pretty heavy with all the heated discussions with a disruptive user, if you could say that. Thanks for your support and leaving the user to his own good judgement from now on, regardless of his future behaviour here. Looking forward to collaborating with you on a few GAs as such. Regards MSincccc (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc - thanks for your concern. Yes, I'm fine. Well done on persevering against that user as well. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty Nothing was of use though. The user has continued with his trademark behaviour in almost all pages he has edited. Most of his edits are unconstructive. Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty Well Tim, Catherine has left the hospital as can be derived from recent press releases and of course, an official statement from Kensington Palace thanking the staff at The London Clinic. Just wanted to know from you and @Keivan.f: whether it should be included. Previously also she had been admitted but we hve not gone forward with mentioning the discharge details possibly because its trivial for inclusion that too in a GA. Thus seeking confirmations from both of you. Keeping the article in its present state till then and expecting a reply soon. Regards MSincccc (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc - I don't think the act of her leaving the hospital is notable, but mentioning that she did attend would be. As we do in other articles when something like this happens, we just mention why and when he/she was at the hospital (eg in Charles's article: In March 2003 Charles underwent surgery at King Edward VII's Hospital to treat a hernia injury). I think the current wording (In January 2024, Catherine underwent abdominal surgery due to an undisclosed medical condition that did not involve cancer. She was subsequently hospitalised at The London Clinic, which resulted in the postponement of several of her public engagements.) is fine as is. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty and @Keivan.f How would you describe a person of the United Kingdom in his or her article's short description- "British" or "English"? I ask this as there is quite a number of pages using "British" as well though the majority state "English". Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc - It depends on which has the strongest personal / cultural / relevant ties to the person or which they identify with most strongly. Is there any particular case you're asking about? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those who are from

MOS:IDENTITY). Keivan.f^Talk 16:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@MSincccc The wording is fine as it is. 20 years from now nobody would care when she was exactly hospitalised or discharged. The only important point health-wise is that she underwent surgery and that is already mentioned. Keivan.f^Talk 00:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Well he would, wouldn't he?, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "he would, wouldn't he"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Well he would, wouldn't he?. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Well he would, wouldn't he?), 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.

—Kusma (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 12,411 views (1,034.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of February 2024 – nice work!

@Tim O'Doherty Could you please brief me as to how I can use the InternetArchive bot for archiving citations on any page? Your help will be appreciated. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

Teahouse could probably answer your question better than I could. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@Tim O'Doherty Can one create a sandbox page on himself? Like HM Tim I. No I found a user sandbox like that hence asking. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:UPNOT. I can't remember exactly, but I think I read somewhere that you can't have too much autobiographical info in your userspace anyway. Hope this helps. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@Tim O'Doherty Take a look at this then-User:HM King Monty I/sandbox. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc - yeah, I'd say that's pretty unambiguously rubbish. Should not be on Wikipedia. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty So would you suggest its deletion to the concerned user? Anyways the user added a file that was posted officially by the Prince and Princess of Wales last April to mark Prince Louis' 5th birthday by presenting it as his own work and then got a warning. Thats how I came across this. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc - I would probably ask him about it before going to MfD. I'd leave a message on his talk page asking if he'd blank or replace it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty Would you help me with getting this page off Wikipedia? As you put it, it should not be up there. What should I do? Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:MFD. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@Tim O'Doherty Another question, here. Can I modify or will it be justified if the short descriptions of David Cameron and James Cleverly be modified to "Foreign Secretary since 2023" and "Home Secretary since 2023" respectively? Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc - For now, probably. When Cameron stops being FS his will almost certainly return to "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 2010 to 2016" and Cleverly's will be "British politician (born 1969)". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty Your News section page is amazing. Just wanted to know whether its open to other users to add to it. Keep up the good work. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc - Thanks. Tell you what: if I die prematurely or am indefinitely blocked, I leave it to you to carry on each weekly instalment :) Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Note to humans: now edited to stave off a case of the "speedies". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim. Hope you are doing well. Well, February is almost over and spring is around the corner. I was wondering whether your schedule would permit you to review a GA nomination or not. I think you have not been involved with the article on Prince Philip in any way, shape or form so you are a good candidate to review it. Once again, I don't insist on conducting a review in 2-3 days so I would not be bothered if you needed 2-3 weeks to wrap it up. Looking forward to your response. Have a nice weekend. Keivan.f^Talk 04:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well going by the present state of the page, I have 14.7% authorship whereas you, Keivan, have 8.5% authorship. So who's going to nominate? I thought I could help because of my recent experience of working on the article. Regards MSincccc (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like squabbles, but in response to your comment, I'm the third top editor for this article and rank 4th in terms of authorship. There are no obstacles in front of me in terms of nominating the article per

WP:GANI. At the moment I'm waiting for Tim's response but I may proceed without him if he is not available (which hopefully is not the case). Keivan.f^Talk 06:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Well I never meant to say that there are obstacles in front of you Keivan.f. I will be very much obliged to help you in the process. Also what I actually wanted to make clear is that I am as eligible to be the nominator because the nominator should be "... either the author of more than 10% of the article or not be ranked sixth or lower in authorship". I fulfil both those criteria presently and hence just wanted to notify that I am as eligible to be the nominator. Go forward with the nomination but please do include me. MSincccc (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f, @MSincccc - Yeah, if conducted in small chunks. March - early/mid April would probably be most viable: later April might or might not be, depending on what happens at that point, as it's a bit up in the air. Depends when you're planning to do it, if I'm being honest. Happy to discuss further. Hope you're well — Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanka for your response. March would be the best time I guess. Starting from April I'll be super busy and it appears that you may end up in the same boat so I'd say we can start it in about 7-10 days from now and finish it in 2-3 weeks. Keivan.f^Talk 22:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, Keivan has recently nominated an article—Aishwarya Rai Bachchan—for GA. I believe you would be an excellent choice to review the process. The reality is, unless he successfully achieves GA status for this article, he won't be able to nominate Prince Philip's article for GA. Your expertise is invaluable, especially as I lack knowledge of the page as this is neither royalty nor tech related. Appreciate your consideration. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for intervening and I'm sure you mean well, but I think I can tackle two GAs at the same time. Let's not put unnecessary pressure on anyone. I just felt I was not ready for another royalty-related GA and it's perfectly fine for all of us to explore different topics now and then. I'm fine with the current article that I have worked on getting picked up by someone else. I think we should collaborate with different people as much as possible.

Btw Tim, good luck with your nomination for Well he would, wouldn't he?. Keivan.f^Talk 11:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc - It's a big beast of an article and would take me a while to do it justice without rushing through or butchering the review. When Keivan nominates Philip I'll be more than happy to take that on. Thanks for the good wishes @Keivan.f - best of luck with your article too. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you start a review on Haile Selassie I article and start a GA discussion, i think it would benefit if you review the article under GA criteria, and input your decision if it meets or passes the GA criteria CtasACT (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CtasACT - Looks like it's been nabbed. Sorry. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty Would you please tell me what exactly I would have to adda t the top of the talk page of the article Ivanka Trump to nominate it for GA ? Meanwhile, I would also like if you could take it up for review once its nominated. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste {{subst:GAN|subtopic=Social sciences and society}} at the top. I'll see if I can take on the review when I have time. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take up the review right now. I have nominated it. Would not have anyone else review it. @Tim O'Doherty MSincccc (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too familiar with Ms Trump so it would be difficult for me to determine if the article met the "broadness" criterion. If no-one picks it up relatively soon, however, I'll have a go. Even so, I'm sure a different reviewer will be just as good, if not better, than me. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty Just take it up. We will see later. Anyway I am not in a hurry. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CtasACT has made an offer. If nothing comes of that in the coming weeks, I will pick it up. Again, I'm sure that other reviewers will be equally understanding. I'm not the be-all and end-all; it's good to have a bit of variety. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc i would review it with my kind heart if you are willing to join the discussion on Haile Selassie I review: again let us both cooperate and make Wikipedia better, but not only for one side but both sides! + Lets take the convo out of @Tim O'Doherty but to yours CtasACT (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CtasACT Offer accepted. Please take up the article for review. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our friend Keivan also needs a reviewer for the page Aishwarya Rai Bachchan. I think you can help him with that article. Then both I and Keivan will be satisfied. Regardless of that, I will help you with your article CtasACT. Regards, MSincccc.

@Tim O'Doherty I and Keivan intend to co-nominate and possible get both Catherine and William's articles to FA status this year. But if you won't mind would you considering working with me on a GA for David Cameron, the incumbent Foreign Secretary? I have achieved significant authorship in the article and am just looking out for tweaks here in and there. So if you could help, that would be great. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc - Well, I had started a draft for Cameron; I own his memoirs, Cameron at 10 by Seldon, and miscellaneous other books in that area. I haven't read the Cameron article, but I have scanned it in varying levels of detail, and I think that in its current form it it quite messy and would need a significant restructuring to get to GA. Writing about prime ministers, especially British prime ministers (given the enormous amount of news, books and sources generated off of the heat of their premierships), is difficult, which is why we have only 4 FAs (Disraeli, Douglas-Home, Chamberlain, Truss) and a few GAs (Churchill, Thatcher and Brown, and even with Brown I'd say that that's reassessment-fodder). I know it's not what you want to hear, but Cameron's article can't just be fixed by tinkering around the edges: you need to fully get in there, blow up the whole thing and piece something brand new together, section by section. Like I said, things are a bit not-in-my-hands at the moment, but ping me if you need help with anything as usual. I'm happy to look over anything at the Cameron article and give you feedback if needed. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But we can still work on it right? Say six-seven months later when we are done with the two FAs concerned. Regards MSincccc (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc - Well, in six or seven months who knows. I'd thought you meant sooner than that. I'm currently, slowly, chipping away at the Sunak article. When you start work on Cameron, let me know and I'll see what I can do. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty Its been quite some time since I was last here. A lot has happened since then. Hope you are following everything that's happening with Catherine and to hear from you soon. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc - Can't say I'm following it that closely, although I did see the BBC's neverending updates on the edited Mother's Day photo; can't say I really get the frenzy behind it, but then again I'm usually behind the times on this sort of thing. Hope you're doing well while contemplating retirement: remember that real life is always more important that whatever goes on on the internet. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty If real life holds such importance, it's understandable why individuals might question the necessity of engaging in needless arguments over changes to Wikipedia articles. Public figures typically do not concern themselves with their Wikipedia entries, except for rare instances like Elon Musk's proposed investment. It's wise to focus on improving one's real-life endeavors rather than seeking recognition for Wikipedia contributions for somebody as young as me, one who has been here on Earth only for a little over a decade. After all, royal figures do not acknowledge such efforts, and unlike media reporters and column writers, Wikipedia editors are unpaid. As someone with limited editing activity and a busy real-life schedule, I assume that prioritizing real-life goals is paramount for you as well. Looking forward to knowing your thoughts about this. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'DohertyI was hoping to hear your thoughts on the above. Additionally, since user CtasACT has yet to review the article on Ivanka Trump, I hope you could consider doing so in the next few days. I understand you and user Voorts are busy with your FA co-nomination for "Well he would, wouldn't he?", but I kindly ask you not to decline my request.

Regards MSincccc (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody picks it up in the coming weeks then yes, I will review it, although I'm not in a rush to. The Trumps are a high-profile topic; I'm sure many people would be interested in reviewing. Add a message on

WT:PLT and see if anyone picks it up from there. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Tim, The article was passed as GA in record time I suppose sometime yesterday. But he/she has still not updated the talk page or the GOOD ARTICLES page. Please check out at Talk:Ivanka Trump/GA2. Also hoping to know your views on what I said about reality above. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for correcting my incorrect title, I no longer believe "At his Majesty's pleasure" is the correct term length for Larry. However, upon further reading I now believe the proper title be "At the pleasure of the Prime Minister". As Larry is appointed by the PM, and has no term limit, I believe this would be accurate. This term is used in the UK, Commonwealth realms and exchanged for "At the pleasure of the President" in the US. Thank you BJGB (talk) 14:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BJGB - Thanks for taking to talk, but unfortunately it's still incorrect. Peta, for example, was recommended by the lieutenant governor of the Isle of Man and approved by the home secretary, and Wilberforce was introduced by the Downing Street office manager. Both Peter II and Peter III were appointed by people who we don't know (but presumably not the prime minister). Things like those don't have a coherent, consistent standard which can be used; unfortunate, but there it is. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty You seem to be presently too busy to reply to me but I believe you will not ignore or deny my request to review a British royalty article for GA in the forthcoming week. Its nothing in comparison to the sizes of Diana, William or Catherine's articles which you have reviewed successfully in the past year. The article concerned is not Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Hoping to receive a positive reply from you soon. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc - which article? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty First let the article Ivanka Trump be passed as GA. For the time being you can help CtasACT in passing it by tomorrow at best. All issues have been resolved. Then I had further brief you. Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty Its Princess Charlotte of Wales (born 2015). I have already nominated it. It's only about 19,990 bytes. I hope you will take it up for review as soon as you read this post which we can work on Prince George of Wales. Regards MSincccc (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently nominated Prince George of Wales for GA. I hope you take it up for review given you previously said that you can handle two reviews at a time when one is a short article like this one. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once I've gotten some way into the Philip one I might pick it up. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In two days time I hope @Tim O'Doherty. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have put up Philip's article for review. I know you might be busy with reviewing Charlotte or George's articles but given that those are relatively short pages I thought you still might be able to do a comprehensive review of a detailed article such as Philip's. If not, I guess I'll just wait for someone to pick it up. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 08:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can User: CtasACT pick it up? What do you both think @Tim O'Doherty and @Keivan.f. Regards MSincccc (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's already been picked up. I think it'd be better if CtasACT gained a little bit more experience before taking up reviews. Keivan.f^Talk 15:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He did successfully review Trump's article for GA and Tim will tell you about that. The DYK reviewer and a few others have commented that the article's well written. You can try giving him a chance to prove himself though @Keivan.f and I will try to be around if possible. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they were incompetent. It's a matter of expertise; I don't know how familiar they are with the topics or what their areas of interest are. I'm sure there will be a chance to collaborate sometime in the future. Keivan.f^Talk 18:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I had nominated an article for GA and would like to have it reviewed. I wanted to have this featured on the DYK because Geronimo was honored with the Billboard Women in Music award in 2024. I am glad to address all the concerns. Happy reviewing! ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 10:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty I have noticed that you have been rather inactive over the past few days. Regardless of that, I hope you will take up Prince George's article for review soon given you were proposing it last June. I hope you are not being bothered by me and that we keep collaborating with each others. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been inactive: was chipping away at my draft for the Sunak article fairly recently. You're not bothering me; will get to work on Philip's GAN soon. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty It obviously does not matter how long the review lasts. At the time of writing, you have left no comments for Philip's GA review for the past two days. You can manage, I believe, two reviews at a time given George's article is pretty short and decent. Hoping for a positive response from you and please take up the review soon. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty Please take up George's article for review soon lest anyone else takes it up and fails it. Regards MSincccc (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty Should my GA nomination for Prince George of Wales be considered a drive-by since I am one of the top five authors as well as one of the all-time highest editors to the article? I have pinged you on the GA review page. Please do help out upon seeing this message. Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]