109.etc

Thou has been named

I just gonna ask, if you had created an account. Now I know :) GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Blowing winds

Sorry about the "pushing" bit. BTW, that entire discussion has evolved into a capitalise/don't capitalise debate. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Strange that there is a debate. MOS:JOBTITLES is unambiguous. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. 109.etc (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"ChuckTres"

Just to break up the recent doom and gloom on Charles' Charles's talk; the GA review has passed on all but one of the requirements; just waiting for the reviewer to reply and we should be good to go. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Well-well-well! Pleasantly surprised. Or I say pleasantly. Maybe it'll just give comfort to the "it's a GA!! we must presumptively revert all changes on sight!!!" squad. Congratulations on your efforts, you've really done the heavy lifting on getting it in better shape. And boooooy did it seem heavy a lot of the time. 109.etc (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that 109. The light at the end of the tunnel's certainly visible, but I'm not breathing freely until it's over the line. It wouldn't be out of character for me to cock up the matter of the images; I suspect there's something wrong with the ALTs, or there's too much sandwiching or some such. Anyway, once that hurdle's jumped, I'm taking a break from that article, I'm sick of looking at it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Understandable. I'm rather wearied of it myself, though less from actual editing effort than the hell-is-other-people stuff. Either way, well-deserved, enjoy your rest, and/or change of windmills to tilt at! 109.etc (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Outside opinion has been sought

Input from an uninvolved party has been requested. (This is just a formality of the process.) ₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I see that part of the Kafkawikiprocess has been Kafkawikiprocessed out. Maybe try WP:M or WP:DRN, if you can stand to sustain the agony? 109.etc (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I just fear time is running out and the dispute has been (rather easily) identified as an obstacle on the (very short now) road to GA status. As far as I can tell, as it presently stands, it's you, me, and DeCausa in favour of the/an edit to the "Accession and coronation plans" section, two against, and a whole bunch of indifferents. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

... and closed again. (And with a rather high-handed comment for my money at that, but there we are.) These Wikiprocesspages would make an excellent rugby team, as they're superb at passing the buck! Apologies for the dead-end suggestion. 109.etc (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Surprisingly. Though, the closer seems to have been confused. That's somewhat understandable, given how many different disputes were going on concurrently, all over the talkpage, not always in chronological order... Plus this completely misrepresented the issue. I hope I've clarified things. We could do with a squeeze of lemony-fresh input. You're right that having an RfC on every sentence is ridiculous. And this isn't even something as important as the article opening that we're talking about. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't follow the part about "pending other DR" either. But it sounded like the RfC alone was being rather firmly deemed to be sufficient reason to Somebody Else's Problem Field it. And if that is, then GD's idea of what requires an RfC will keep that going until the death of many of us. (The subject of the article has quite a few years on me, but equally he comes from notorious long-lived stock...)

Frankly I'd have been tempted to take the matter to AN/I, except I'm all the more certain they'd pass the buck. Likely especially with an "involved admin", candidly.

Possibly our best, albeit faint hope is that the flipside to "no deadline to improve the article" is "no panic about 'maintaining' it", either. Who knows.

I'd certainly love to get some fresh input, but I can't blame people for not wanting to get involved. Beyond blaming Wikipedia for being systemically dysfunctional when it comes to this sort of thing. 109.etc (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I've been thinking quite a lot over the last few hours, after that last volley with GD last night, that WP:DRN won't so much pass the buck as be unable to do anything because of its very purpose; a mediator can't get blood from a stone any more than we can. Once any mediator is as frustrated by GD's obstructionism as we are, they'll have no option but tell us to take the dispute somewhere else. They can't be judges in debate club.

That's led me to think it might be about time to push the nuclear button and take this to WP:AN/I. It's no longer (if it ever was) an issue of opposing views on the subject of the article or section; it's become (or always was) entirely a problem of behaviour (exacerbated by a couple of misguided--likely because of their total detachment from discussion--people enabling the agitator with reverts) that extends back well beyond the beginning of work on CIII. I feel the involvement of an admin in this is actually a reason to go to AN/I; DrK isn't above the law.

Of course, I don't want to do that; I keep hoping for more editors to just suddenly get involved because all GD seems to relent to is a majority (but, evidently, a strong majoiryt, since he won't respect the present majority favouring the edits to that section). It's just a matter of when to accept that's not going to happen. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I think outside input is always valuable. Even if it doesn't lead to two people that disagree on everything to agree on anything, it can serve to buffer them from rubbing directly against each other while some sort of consensus is hammered out. Somewhat like Proximity Talks, if you will. The main difficulty seems to be getting it at all.

DrKay isn't above the law... they -- like Judge Dredd -- are the law. Well, one cog of it. Let's not kid ourselves, for them it's a jury of their peers. For others, it's looking down from an increasingly rarified height according to the perceived "standing" of the editor. That's the unfortunate reality of what's at times more like a gamified social-media platform, I'm afraid than it is a solemnly inquisitorial court. At best it's the Marshals and the Sheriffs in the Wild West bickering among themselves.

Given that there's the GAN notionally in progress, and that the "maintain stability!!!" contingent is only doing to get more insistent on version-freezing moribund inaccuracies in the immediate runup to the crown-dabbing, I don't plan to trial-balloon further "compromise" -- with what, even?! -- wordings, as frankly they're not getting any sort of hearing. Nor am I keen to go immediately to AN/I, though it might indeed come to that. On the plus side, some of the over-protectiveness of the status quo might reduce afterwards. On the minus, so might any impetus to improve it at all -- see Tim's comments on that. 109.etc (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to change, but I would like two days of relative stability so the GA review isn't tossed aside immediately; right now, the nomination's on a knife edge. I've requested a second opinion, so I'm holding out hope for a "proper" GA review that passes. Preferably soon. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not including you in the advocates of moribund mediocrity -- clearly! Though you have made some "people on both sides" sorts of comments I've been somewhat exasperated by. As I say the next couple of days don't strike me as the best time for bold changes, though I suspect the GAN's going to end up taking a whole lot longer than that. Multiple back-to-back one-sentence RfCs very clearly isn't the way to go. 109.etc (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Million Award for Charles III

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Charles III (estimated annual readership: 19,431,778) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't have begun the task force without being convinced by your comments here and here that something needed to be done about the article, so you entirely deserve your share of the credit now that the article is at GA. Also, this may give you a bit of a chuckle. Regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, the fine line between being a "disruptive editor" and being the grit in the oyster than leads to someone else polishing up a fine pearl! And yes, I recall that comment well! If you only knew then what you know now... you'd have had even less interest! You're very kind, thank you very much. 109.etc (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Dammit. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikiprocess gonna wikiprocess. Just never very efficiently. Nonetheless, you've made huge improvements to it. And in the face of some fairly baseless-seeming "improvements to the article hurt my feels" resistance, at that. 109.etc (talk) 18:31, 2 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)

Charles III, Part 2

Just to let you know, 109: I've withdrawn the old nomination so a fresh review can take place. GA1 was going nowhere, so this is an attempt to actually get fresh eyes on the article. Tim riley's said he'll do the review; looking at his reviewing history, it seems like he'll do a superb job. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You alright, 109? You've not been on over a week. Hope you're doing well. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Charles III requested move discussion

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Still there?

You've not made an edit for a few months now. Of course, you don't have to, but it'd be a shame to lose such an excellent contributor to talk page discussions. Hope you're well, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course, I can't speak for him and, should he ever return, I welcome a correction if I'm wrong, but, I'm almost certain 109 quit out of disappointment with this whole Kafkaesque "system" wasting his time, effort, and intelligence. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

That's about it. I 'surged' my activity to try to improve the state of the C3 article prior to the huge traffic spike it'd see at the coronation, and essentially got nowhere with my main concerns, which the article is still notably glaring in regards to. Other than rather burned out, and mentioned in dispatches at AN/I in connection with an especially unhelpful couple of "status quo" editors brainstorming ideas for 'boomerang' sanctions on others. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Understand that. AN/I is an absolute cesspool (although maybe sometimes a necessary evil). It's where admins with Napoleon complexes go to wield the most power they'll ever hold, which is unfortunately not limited to AN/I, but also applies to veteran editors' talkpages where they decide to brawl over WP:INVOLVED content disputes. Brain's a bit foggy with regards to May, but am assuming you refer to the infobox as one of your main concerns; is that right? By the way, in case you hadn't already seen, there's a push for GA BritRoy articles, with Diana GA'd a few days ago and William under review. And as for who you called "the Other Liz", her article has now been reconstructed in a similar fashion to how, if I have time, I hope to rewrite Charles's article from scratch. Yes, it might soon be time to dust off CIII again (that didn't go badly at all last time, did it?). Best, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Not principally about the infobox, though that got drug in. Mainly about that 'should we actually say in plain English in the article text where he's king of' issue. Progress on that got utterly stonewalled. Getting it reworked to stumble through GAR despite all that was certainly an achievement, however! It all got excessively fraught due to the admittedly quixotic task of trying to do the improvements to a deadline, and the seemingly entrenched efforts of some of prevent any change, or at least make it glacial. Hopefully your plan to do a 'zero based restructure' won't run into that, without the added angst of the artificial timescale. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, although with Truss I did actually give myself another artificial timeline: begin the FAC on the one year anniversary of the beginning of her premiership, and get it closed by the anniversary of its end (says something about the dignity of the prime minister's office, I suppose). With Charles, assuming I ever find the time and resources to get it done, there'll be no such constraint. Post-match autopsy of the GA process and my comment from yesterday aside, the CIII project probably won't be resurrected, unless people like you, Miesianical and GD want it to be. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

At least self-imposed deadlines can be made more flexible, and if one doesn't announce them too widely, avoids giving other people a target to pace their filibustering until. I'm not sure how helpful the 'task force' approach was. If a Wikiproject wants to set up a subpage that's entirely within its scope, and likewise if an article talk-page needs one for some defined reason. But if it's just duplicating the talk-page itself, that's another rationale for people to say "ahyesbutnoconsensushere" when they get merged back in. Maybe it should be tied to an actual redrafted article if it's used at all. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)