User talk:DrKay

Mary Queen of Scots / Mary I

Curious as to your reasoning behind reverting the edit to include the ordinal in the info box. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:7579:5088:E1FC:DF5C (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

King James II

About the edit of the King James II. I do not believe that the edit can be described as "undue weight" considering the bishop of Paris declared him servant of God. And this fact is reflected in that very same article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesseeeee 4 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I told you why in April. DrKay (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 82.96.34.216

You blocked 82.96.34.216 once before for disruptive editing. The block has expired, and the editor is back to the same old tricks, despite multiple further warnings. See here: [1]. Would you consider another block? Instant Comma (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Arms section added for Wallis Simpson, Duchess of Windsor

You removed the Arms section I added to the page Wallis Simpson instead of messaging or asking me to provide a better citation or proof first. Why? (Reason for removal given: "essentially unsourced original research | if not published, not important enough to be in the article") I went ahead and uploaded the message sent to me by the College of Arms as further proof here. --Obversa (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, sources must be published. Private communications are not reliable sources as defined by wikipedia. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects, an article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Since her arms have never been published and are not discussed in any depth, if at all, in the body of reliable, published material about her, they do not belong in the article. DrKay (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Monarchy in Greece

I would like to discuss with you about the Monarchy in Greece and the related articles. The reason for moving the articles is that there is no longer Monarchy in Greece and the titles are totally wrong Jerotheo (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves, as there has been previous discussion of the article titles, the articles should only be moved after a requested move discussion. DrKay (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Zelda Fitzgerald under FA review

I have nominated Zelda Fitzgerald for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. As you edited this article in the past, your input there and further contributions to the article would be appreciated. — Flask (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Utkarsh555

Hi, DrKay, you blocked Utkarsh555 for moving pages without discussions. I've found more pages he has moved without such discussion and I'm tired of going through them and requesting them at requests to move. I've found them here. Some of the pages he renamed don't fit the content of the article. Some pages he moved are okay such as for diplomatic missions. And that's just some. But the list of the rest is too long. Could you move them back since you have the tools as an admin? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is a mass move tool. I thought you could undo moves by moving the current article over the new redirect without asking at requested moves. DrKay (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but sometimes it doesn't let you, at least in my case, reverting it back to the previous title it will warn since the original title has become the redirect. I'll try to do as many as I can requesting at RM. Although, on a side note, I think he will try to do the same thing when his block ends next week. So, it's best to keep an eye out if he does go back to his old habits. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if you've seen his rambling on his talk page, but I don't think he's going to contribute. He's demanding I respond but I'm not going to fall down that rabbit hole. His block expires tomorrow and his behavior only indicates toward a permanent block. It'll be interesting to see how he behaves. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

He's been moving pages again without discussions. This is going to require a permanent block because it is getting really annoying. Most of his moves for today, April 5, 2022, have been done without going to requested moves or starting a discussion. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Sarwan Kumar Pandey is his new account. Please block immediately. Thanks. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully, this will be the last time, but I think blocking access to his talk page is needed. Not sure if you saw his latest post on there where he pings you, I, and Ameliorate!, but he's not here to show remorse or learn from what he's done. His constant pinging is getting on my nerves. Please do so. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Guardian quote

Thank you so much for sorting that out. It was annoyingly wrong but in wanting to sort it out I couldn't see the wood for the trees. I very much like the neat fix your incisive surgery brought. Cheers DBaK (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:ANI § User:Aca1291

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:ANI § User:Aca1291. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi DrKay. I got your name from the "List of recently active admins" link at the top of WP:ANI. Would you mind taking a look at this thread? User:Aca1291 has continued to revert at 2019 Indian general election in Arunachal Pradesh. I was going to revert back to the last stable version, but that would most likely just lead to another yet another reverting of a revert. This probably can now be discussed at AN3, but I'm not sure that's OK because it's already at ANI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Help requested

Hello Kay, I've been pointed in your direction with a help request. I'll keep it short. I've been adding missing entries to the List of knights and ladies of the Garter page but I'll soon hit a wall. There were 8 ladies appointed to the order in 1399 but that year had two kings, Richard II and Henry IV. Do you know good sources to help me find out who appointed who here? Or at least someone who might know? --Killuminator (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

There's a list in Appendix B of Volume II (1912) of The Complete Peerage [2] but it isn't divided by sovereign. However, The Order of the Garter, 1348-1461 mentions Agnes Arundel and Margaret Roos on page 82, and the duchess of York, marchinoness of Dorset and countess of Westmoreland on pages 103-4 as appointments by Richard II.

Please undo the made-up names in the list of knights. Sons of medieval English kings were not styled as Prince X of England. That's a made-up name you wouldn't find in a proper source. DrKay (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources. I reversed the edits for knights but I have a question that's related to that style now. Prince Paul of Yugoslavia would be properly styled Prince Pavle Karađorđević and of Yugoslavia would be a made-up term here. That's how he was styled in his country and that's how he is known today. In other words, Serbian royalty, their society and historians used their surnames. One of the sources on his page and even Encyclopedia Britannica styles him properly as Prince Paul Karadjordjević (Anglicized name and dj substitutes đ but you get the idea). The descriptive suffix used there is just that, a descriptive suffix. May I change it for accuracy? --Killuminator (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If you mean change the article content, then follow WP:BOLD. If you mean change the article title, as there has been previous discussion of the article title, you will need to follow the process at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. DrKay (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Anne, Princess Royal and Honorary Military Appointments

You reverted my edits on putting in the dates of Anne's honorary military appointments and reordering them into date order. My edit reflects the formats in the articles Honours and Titles of Elizabeth II, Duke of Edinburgh etc. Why did you revert? Was it to do with the formatting of the dash or that some dates might have not had the source? Mithrandir1967

Both. On the format: some of the formats on those other articles are also incorrect. Year ranges should use an unspaced dash not a spaced one. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. If I start to edit in line with the MOS:DASH, but only do those which are referenced, leaving those that aren't until I can find the reference, would that be ok? Happy to go and edit the other articles in line with MOS:DASH when I get a chance (I didn't create those artilces and have never edited them). Mithrandir1967 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.169.168 (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course! Thanks. DrKay (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR for George Fox

I have nominated George Fox for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 21:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi, I have no idea what I've done wrong, would you please be able to elaborate a bit more? Dr. Vogel (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves, technical requests should not be performed where anyone could reasonably contest the move, such as when there has been previous discussion of the article title. DrKay (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's absolutely right. Did I make a mistake with one of my moves?

I'm not sure which one you mean, I handle many requests per day. I'm sorry if I messed one up.

Which one do you mean? Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, Danny García. I will restore your right on the assumption you'll be more careful. DrKay (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't see the RM from 10 years ago, it completely escaped me. Definitely a mistake. In future, I will make sure I study the talk pages more carefully, even for old stuff. Thank you.

I can't promise I'll never make a mistake again, but if I do please let me know and I'll try my best to fix it. Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 84.65.249.94

Hi DrKay, I know we have not always seen eye to eye on issues in the past, but I would appreciate your assistance in avoiding an edit war on the page Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway. A user is ignoring the sources as well as my comments in the edit summaries, user talk page, and the page's talk page.

I would appreciate your assistance or guidance on how to resolve this issue. Thank you. Richiepip (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Continue to notify the user and ask for administrative assistance if the IP continues to add unsourced content despite warnings. DrKay (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Quatermass and the Pit under FA review

I have nominated Quatermass and the Pit for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --George Ho (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Danny García

Greetings. Per this, what would be my next course of action in getting the disambiguated article title – Danny Garcia (boxer) – to stick? As can be seen at Daniel García, there are numerous sportspeople with the same name, and the boxer should absolutely not be the primary topic as he is no longer as prominent (within boxing) as he was in 2012. Also, regarding the diacritics, surely they become irrelevant for U.S.-born individuals? If there's an MOS on their usage, I'll be happy to go with that, but I'd still like to see it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The process for starting a discussion is detailed at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. DrKay (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Cleveland Street scandal

Thanks for your revert! I now realise I just hadn't read the original properly, so a real "doh, doh doh!" moment on my part!!! CharlesSpencer (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

AJ DA SUN EMPEROR

Hi:

In the past you have blocked various socks of AJ DA YOUNGAN, such as AJLUMBER, AJISCRAZY, AJDAITALIAN, AJDADON1, and AJ DA ONLY DON. User:AJ DA SUN EMPEROR is a new one. (Also, AJ DA EMPEROR and AJ DA SUN KINGGG are two that slipped by.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I've filed an SPI report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AJ DA YOUNGAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you. A new one, just now User:Aj da bay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Noting new account "Nick da sicilian" with an edit to one of the usual articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

About my editions

I'm sorry buddy, I had no idea I was forbidden from using the parameters that are available for anyone to use and which are described in the official Wikipedia guide for sources templates; but I believe you when you say it's wrong and I shall never mention the place of publication of a source ever again (although I admit I do disagree with your argument that it shouldn't be done just because nobody does it, that sounds like a deficient justification). But, by the way, I didn't receive a 'warning' or at least I seriously doubt it was because it was just a friendly clarification and the person who wrote it even complimented some of my edits; and also I must say that making honest mistakes on my editions when I genuinely attempt to improve an article such as using the parameter 'P' instead of 'PP' for more than one page could be said to be a 'disruption' as you call it, it's just a mistake. BTW, I'm really not sure whether to reply to your comment here in your discussion page or mine so I posted it in both places. The Exterminating Angel (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Overlinking

Regarding your complaints about single-character fractions (¾) vs. formatted fractions (⁠3/4⁠) thank you. I will charitably assume that you had no intention of deprecating my abridgement of the disfavored "3/4 of a grain" for the preferred form for measured quantities "⁠3/4⁠ grain", with fractions being preferred for non-metric, traditional apothecary measures. In any case, I've changed it.

Regarding your point about over-linking. I presume this was in the section regarding the death of George V; I've left it as-is, since it remediates a defect in the writing style. If you like, you could redact the text to de-obfuscate the references to which individuals did what.

The problem that I was trying to overcome was the as-present convoluted text, where the same individual is opaquely referred to in the same paragraph as Edward, the Prince of Wales, and Edward VIII; similarly Albert and George VI are referred to in that same paragraph, which includes yet a third George, who was neither George V nor George VI nor (redundantly) Albert. Often experts in a field descend to a communication defect, wherein obscure and obtuse vocabulary is transparent to them, and they falsely assume it will be so for others. This is, of course, bad style for an international encyclopedia. I know I am subject to this same defect in topics on astronomy and in mathematics (where I'm Dr. Tom). Perhaps the writer on this historical segment was affected so for the history of the royal family after WWI. In order to avoid changing the writing style, I deliberately over-linked the names, in order to provide the reader with a convenient avenue for sorting out the scrambled references to members of George V's family, perhaps only by checking the links' hover-text. That seemed to be the least intrusive change to redact the obscure, inadequately straightforward text. 71.94.235.196 (talk) 05:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You did not change 3/4 to a preferred form. You changed it to a pre-formatted character[3], which is deprecated in all circumstances. While {{sfrac}} may be favored in articles on astronomy and mathematics, a fraction of a non-metric unit in articles on other articles (such as biographies of kings) should use either written text or {{frac}}. This is detailed at the link I gave: MOS:FRACTIONS. Additionally, per MOS:SLASH, 3/4 is an acceptable form for a fraction. DrKay (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I beg to differ: In the case of this article, "⁠3/4⁠ grain" is, in fact a reference to a 'scientific' (medical) measurement in a 'scientific' context quoting from the notes of a 'scientist' (physician) even though imbedded in a biography. Such a measurement calls for no text "of a" between the quantity and the unit of measure. And as I pointed out, in response to your valid complaint, I replaced the single-character fraction or pre-formatted fraction "¾" with the standing fraction mandated for scientific measurement on Sun 20 Feb before starting this section. Again, thank you for your first criticism, but your contiued complaint about the rectified issue seems to just be petulance.

Since you made no comment about the overlinking, I assume that for now you are fine with my hasty remedy. I actually hope that you might be contemplating a rewrite of the paragraph(s) with the obtuse references to Albert – one of the three distinct persons named George – and one person named as two different versions of Edward, who is also called "Prince of Wales". (Regardless of being familiar to Brittons, it is not well-known in all other parts of the world, and only becomes familiar to history readers after they have become immersed in the subtleties of British Royalty, not when they begin by skimming a general-reference encyclopedia article.)

71.94.235.196 (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The guidance explicitly says "In science and mathematics articles". This is not a science or mathematics article. DrKay (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Guilherme Styles

He is back, annoying as ever. Surtsicna (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Titles of Joseon concubines

I noticed that you removed the 'Titles' section from multiple pages of Joseon concubines because they are unsourced. I wrote a few of them and the dates are from the namu.wiki pages (many of the dates also already appear in the biographies). Would it be fine if I undo the edits? Or should I add namu.wiki as source? Maria0215 (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikis are not reliable sources, and cannot be used as sources per WP:SPS. DrKay (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding my edit about Marina Doria's birth date

Hello. I'm unsure, and I'm sorry if I'm wrong. But I noticed that my edit of the page, regarding her date of birth, was reverted. Now, again, I'm unsure if that is her date of birth, but I searched online, and some sites reported that as her date of birth, for that I edited the page with that date. I wanted to ask indeed if I was wrong. These are some examples: https://www.donnaglamour.it/chi-e-marina-doria/curiosita/?refresh_ce https://www.wikiwand.com/it/Marina_Doria https://www.newsitaliane.it/2021/04/10/marina-doria-chi-e-la-madre-di-emanuele-filiberto-di-savoia-eta-marito-e-vita-privata/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.38.150.237 (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

See my edit of 5 minutes ago[4]. DrKay (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Map citation

The error message was added to {{cite map}} without community input and is not actionable. Hundreds of articles have links in the inset parameter and it's been a project norm for years without issue. The version of the citation that you are using is missing most of the metadata and is not appropriate for a stable FA. SounderBruce 21:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not missing metadata. It was cite map before, it is cite map now. It's the same template. All I've done is correct the date from "Mat 31" and included an archive-url. There's more information, not less. DrKay (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

{{cite WSDOT map}} includes the publisher information, scale, and of course a proper attribution of the inset. You are aware that you're edit warring instead of even attempting to find consensus, right? SounderBruce 21:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It takes at least two to edit war. Scale was never there. I added the author and publisher actually. DrKay (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Your version is still missing the scale (which has since become standard for these articles), the publication location, and proper formatting. Your version introduced two MOS errors and offered no benefit to readers. SounderBruce 21:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not removed scale or location. They were not there in the version before the edit war. My version is almost identical to the former version. It's the same template, the same author, the same year, the same publisher, the same map, the same url-status. It's the same archive-url and archive-date that you introduced. It 'offered no benefit' -- well, no it didn't. It's the same as it was. The only difference is that it is no longer in 3 clean-up categories. DrKay (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Karl Zimmermann

I know even Google Books gets it wrong (somehow) in the metadata, but I have several of his books and articles and Karl Zimmermann's name is definitely spelled with two n's. Best, Mackensen (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Mary, Queen of Scots revert

Re: your revert of the year-added-to-date edit of the Mary, Queen of Scots article, with the comment "remove repetition". Adding the year to a date is not repetitive, it adds clarity, which is why it's recommended by WP:DATE. Though it may not be absolutely necessary in some situations, it does no harm, and ensures that the reader fully understands the date. Further, if the sentence without the year is taken out of context (for example, is excerpted somewhere else), the lack of a year causes confusion, and the goal of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is to provide easy-to-understand information, not cause confusion. Would you please reconsider your revert. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

No. The year is obvious and already given. DrKay (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

A request

Howdy. The so called discussion isn't linked in the edit summary of the other editor. Will you or somebody PLEASE point me to the discussion-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

PS: This long standing practice, seems to exclude English & Scottish monarchs, when they're the same individual. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be another case of you being fatigued: [5][6][7][8]. "James VI & I" and "James VII & II" are recognizable names found in multiple reliable sources. "Philip II & I" was a completely unknown name 10 years ago with no sources ever using it. I can only find one source using it now: Timon Screech's 2020 The Shogun's Silver Telescope. I can only find "Philip IV & III" in Lucy Moore's Lady Fanshawe's Receipt Book (2017). There's a couple of websites using "Philip III & II" but nothing obviously reliable, and again all post-2012. Everything else coming up in searches is either obvious internet trash or talking about more than one man: "kings Philip II and I of Spain" or " his father and grandfather Philip III and II, the Catholic Monarchs" and so on. See also Talk:James VI and I/Archive 7#Compromise Suggestion to Requested Move: James VI and I where this was discussed, and you were present. DrKay (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

We're due for a separate discussion on the 3 Portuguese monarchs named Philip. Something I may bring up, in the summer. I'm not concerned with the article titles (thank goodness they're not messed up, like the post-1603 Stuarts), just the presentation of names in the infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Move from James A. Robinson (temp) to James A. Robinson (economist)

I was going to move "James A. Robinson (temp)" to James A. Robinson (economist), but now I saw that you already did the move for me! Thank you for doing a move that I could have done myself! GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

User:90.247.2.56

FWIW, just like they did last time, the first edit made by IP User:90.247.2.56 after the expiration of their latest block, that you instituted, was the exact same edit they were blocked for waring over, with no Talk page participating in spite of an existing thread (with only my initiating contribution) relating to the dispute. Agricolae (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Removal of actors on Downton Abbey: A New Era

Dear DrKay, I can understand why you have removed the names of the child actors from the cast list, but why did you remove actors such as Natalie Baye and Paul Copley? Not blaming you or anything :-) but I would like to understand the reasoning behind it. Thank you! Regards, Eve^NL 08:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

They were unsourced. DrKay (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I've tried (and obviously failed) to source them, but I'm going to leave it as-is now... I find the rules in regards to sourcing on en:wiki extremely discouraging. I've seen the film twice, all mentioned actors are actually in it, but I cannot seem to add them to anyones satisfaction I'm not blaming you, you're just following the rules, but I spent quite a bit of time finding and adding the sources and POOF they're gone. I think I'll stay at nl:wiki haha. Thanks for explaining anyway, cheers - Eve^NL 11:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Rutland RR article

Please find Talk page, latest item. Then, please change “during the early 1950’s” to “1953”. Thank you. 2600:1004:B167:E3AB:5444:4D3A:2852:918C (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein

Hello, may I ask a question about Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein, do you prefer the painting or a photo? I know you weren’t the one who reverted it but I looked on there talk page since they don’t have a good history of responding to there talk page I knew they wouldn’t respond to me. I just want to get your opinion. I thought since there’s photos of his wife and most of his family members I thought a photo would be more fitting than a portrait. If you don’t like the photo I chose perhaps we could compromise and select a different photo. Thanks! Orson12345 (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I certainly don't mind a photograph. I think the only advantage of the portrait is that it is in color. DrKay (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, sorry it took me a while to respond I’ve been really busy lately. Are you ok with me restoring the photo or do want another one? Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 04:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm OK with a photo. DrKay (talk) 06:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Blade Runner edit

I see you removed my addition of the phrase "neon noir" from the Blade Runner article. I'll admit it might have been phrased awkwardly, but I think it's important to have it somewhere in the article. Look at the Neon noir section of the Film noir article. After seeing Blade Runner listed there, do you have a problem with "neon noir" being added somewhere? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

It appears to be uncited. The cite given in the Film noir article doesn't link Blade Runner with the phrase. DrKay (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't sure why you reverted because you didn't leave an edit summary. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Most recent Blade Runner edit revert

Would you find it acceptable if I put the information in the body of the article? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it can go in the body. DrKay (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The Queen

Hello, why did you change my edit to remove incorrect use of commas before the final "and" in a list, when the template says to use British English – not ENGVAR? What am I missing Regards? Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Oxford commas are used in the UK. That's why they're called Oxford commas. DrKay (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

But you don't need them in this instance, as there's no ambiguity in the list. Anyhow, as you're a Wikipedia VIP, I won't dare apply the rules of British English punctuation in this case. Have a nice day. Billsmith60 (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Battle of Dien Bien Phu

I have nominated Battle of Dien Bien Phu for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 18:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Privacy Lock Q

Is there a reason why the Sussex children have locked Wikipedia pages and not the Cambridge children? Curious how anyone can edit the pages of Prince William’s children, but not Prince Harry’s. 2600:1010:B1DB:A717:79A0:F17A:80FF:AF5C (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

They are more frequently targeted by vandals and the last time unprotection was tried, the disruption re-started within minutes: [9]. DrKay (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

Thank you for reverting one of Thrakkx's actions, because it's against the consensus for lead sentence without consulting the discussion page. Please explain how Thrakkx is adding bold inline for names comparing with this diff, as a redirect for "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary" is not required for bolding should be used sparingly.

DrKay good idea to restrict, however, I am trying to make a genuine edit highlighting the fact that Elizabeth was the longest-serving female Head of State in world history. Am I able to do this? Thanks. 24may1819 (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It's already in the Diamond Jubilee and longevity section. DrKay (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Another sock puppet of AJ DA YOUNGAN?

It suspect that User:AJ DA SUN GOD is yet another sockpuppet of User:AJ DA YOUNGAN (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AJ DA YOUNGAN/Archive). --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Apparently immediately created yet another account: Logan da dude. See these diffs: [10] [11]. Whatever we have done seems to have been ineffective at stopping it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing DrKay a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Findagrave

Hi, those WP directives WP:Find a Grave famous people actually support the permissive usage of the Findagrave. Findagrave has been used mostly as an external link since there has been a Wikipedia. I don't know who's writing the WP, I wouldn't think its an editor/contributor as it would be an admin/arbitrator . However terms like 'user generated', 'rarely' and 'not useful' are suspect. Wikipedia itself is slammed continuously for being user generated.(*see:https://www.bitchute.com/video/PvJ3J0olOcg7/) IMDb WP:IMDB is accepted as an external link though it is user generated and full of erroneous content. IMDb has the Community section(I'm a member) where you can tell an admin something needs correcting and the site is still error ridden. Back to Wikipedia, I usually have a book source to augment and or back up a birth and death date in addition to Findagrave when I cited it. But not the cemetery if there is one, Findagrave does that par excellence. That's fine if Findagrave is posted in external links so long as its not discarded because somebody doesn't think its useful.Koplimek (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, wikipedia is not a Wikipedia:Reliable source. That is why it is not permitted to use it as one. DrKay (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Ancestry

So recently I added the 4th generation to the Richard, 3rd Duke of York page. Now I was told that it was too much info and should not go back more than 3 generations for this individual, but I strongly disagree. I think it is helpful to see how he is descended from Lionel of Antwerp as the Wars of the Roses was based off who had the stronger claim between the two cadet branches of the royal House of Plantagenet. In fact, on Richard's Wikipedia page it says "He was a member of the ruling House of Plantagenet by virtue of being a direct male line descendant of Edmund of Langley, Edward III’s fourth surviving son. However, it was through his mother, Anne Mortimer, a descendant of Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel of Antwerp, that Richard inherited his strongest claim to the throne.". Therefore I thought it was good to show the descent. Also, on many other pages the ancestry charts go back 4 generations anyway. For example, look at Alfonso XI of Castile, Bela IV of Hungary, Coloman of Lodomeria, Elizabeth of Hungary, Stephen III of Hungary, Emeric of Hungary, Charles VII of France, Charles VIII of France, Louis XII of France, Francis I of France, Valentina Visconti, Albert II of Germany, Amadeus, and so many more people (you get the point, LOL) have 4 generations in their ancestry chart. Right now on the Ancestry section it says that "This section may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. Please help by spinning off or relocating any relevant information, and removing excessive detail that may be against Wikipedia's inclusion policy. (June 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)" Anyway, I am only trying to be helpful and I was getting pushback. I thought you might be willing to help me out as I am still getting learning the intricacies of the Wikipedia website and do not want to ruffle any feathers. Did not want to remove this and wanted to ask another Wikipedia user for their help and thought of you. Thank you so much for your time! User:DHalps (talk) 21 December 2024

Leader image IP block evasion

Hi DrKay, the user whose IP you reverted the other day has returned here. I am unfamiliar with this case, are there any particularly problematic edits that tend to be made that have a particular need to be watched out for? CMD (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This is block evasion by Special:Contributions/Iteeter. I don't recall there being anything absolutely egregious: just misinformed guesses as to lines of succession and refusal to listen to editors, join discussion or stick to the manual of style. DrKay (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Serial Commas

Hello,

Your undoing of my punctuation edits to the articles about Queen Elizabeth and Mary of Tech is incorrect. British English does not use a comma before the final "and" in a list of at least three items, unless one – an Oxford comma – is required to avoid ambiguity. However, as none exists in the above cases, a comma is incorrect. Why do the rules of UK punctuation not apply to administrators? Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Bullshit. There's nothing wrong with serial commas in any variety of English. WP:MISSSNODGRASS. DrKay (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

"Bullshit" – from an Administrator, who represents Wikipedia, to a mere editor? Well done you Billsmith60 (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense, then. Trash. Rubbish. Garbage. Call it what you will. It's still wrong. DrKay (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Please block the /64 when blocking IPV6 addresses

Hello, thanks for dealing with 2603:7080:5044:7A00:F527:C061:7A7D:DF52, but please just block the /64 in cases like this (see the essay for explanation). I've widened your block; Daniel Case had previously done so as well, but I extended it this time. Graham87 02:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding old name of Hyderabad

Hi, I have noticed that the addition of old names of Hyderabad (India) was reverted by you mentioning that Farkhunda Bunyad is not a chromogrammatic epithet. I will check with Iranian friends if they can give some information about how to get the number from that epithet. But this much is true that Farkhunda Bunyad (Foundation of Fortune) was an epithet of Hyderabad. It was changed to Darul Jihad after Aurangzeb's conquest later. Again this name was restored after Nizam ul Mulk (Asaf Jah I) became independent ruler of Deccan in 1720s. So, to consider your valid point, I prefer to remove the word chromogrammtic from the sentences I have added. I will one or two more references to support that epithet was indeed used for Hyderabad. Thank you for your suggestion. Have a nice day. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Harv ref error

DrKay, I've done something wrong here. I'm getting better as using HarvRefs, but don't know what to do there. Are you able to fix it? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Sorry, haven't a clue. That one's got me beat! DrKay (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Yikes ... I'll do something different then, thanks anyway, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Monarch of the Commonwealth realms?

Concerning the articles Royal Victorian Order & Order of Merit. Is there such a title/position as "Monarch of the Commonwealth realms"? GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps using the monarch's name (currently Elizabeth II), would end any potential edit wars. GoodDay (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I think I 'might' have to open up an RFC concerning such medals. Best way to avoid edit-wars & blocks. GoodDay (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

See Proclamation of accession of Elizabeth II. I'm growing concerned. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

July 23rd

Hello, I wanted to add a list of prime ministers to the infoboxes of English monarchs like what I did for the Spanish monarchs. I know George I only had one prime minister so if you want I can make it so it’s not a list just PM then his name next to it. I thinks it looks nice and really doesn’t make much of a difference. I hope we can come to a compromise. Regards, Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 16:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree as explained previously at Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 43#Prime ministers section in infobox. DrKay (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me I have a question, could you find some ship articles for me to edit?

Do you know about me not knowing completely how to edit a article? Well I got some help from Palmiped and he told some places to read about knowing how to edit a article or create one

Jonah Deweil Jonah DeWeil (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Cannabis

Hi. I just came across this article from the US National Library of Medicine, which mentions that Queen Victoria was given "an alcoholic extract of the cannabis plant" to help her with menstrual and/or childbirth. Considering the fact that the article mentions her use of chloroform, don't you think this should be mentioned as well? I just needed an opinion on the matter. Keivan.f^Talk 06:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not from the US National Library of Medicine; it is stored in it (that's what Pubmed is, for most journal articles). That's classified by PubMed as an editorial, it is from the British Journal of Pharmacology, and the editorial cites no source for the "is reported to have"; stand alone, it does not look strong enough for use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

This editorial at least provides some basis for the speculation, but you will need to get hold of the sources they cite. One of the two is at this archive but too long to search. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello SandyGeorgia and thanks for the clarification. I should have said that it was available on the US National Library of Medicine, but it was a little bit late at night and I wasn't really focused. I actually looked at the this archive, the link for which you kindly provided. In the fifth paragraph of "Chapter 2 History of the Use of Cannabis", there's this explanation: "It is said to have been used by Queen Victoria against period pains: there is no actual proof of this at all, but Sir Robert Russell, for many years her personal physician, wrote extensively on cannabis, recommending it for use in dysmenorrhoea." Well, the phrase "no actual proof" indicates that it is more of a rumor and I don't know if it would be reasonable to include it in the article. Yet, occasionally such speculations have been added to articles about different subjects. I still wonder what other users think though. Keivan.f^Talk 19:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that quote does the trick; it should not be included, as there seems to be no basis for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for the help. Keivan.f^Talk 23:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:Heads of government of monarchies

Would you please update your reason for the TFD? I really wanted to delete this template a long time ago as it was meant to be experimental. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

Happy September DarKay! Jonah DeWeil (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Mary Ann Nichols

Wasn't Mary Ann Nichols's birth place Dawes Court, Shoe Lane (off Fleet Street), London? The article states she was born in Soho. Regards, K. Kieronoldham (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I've added a couple of sources for the other location. DrKay (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to say thanks for simplifying the citation to the Reuters article on the new King using the name Charles III in the infobox on the late Queen's article. I didn't like including it twice like that but did so primarily because another user was aggressively reverting the references to Charles III, and leaving somewhat rude talk page messages, if he didn't see a citation every time. He seems to have calmed down now, but anyway, thanks for simplifying it, as I will readily admit that the citation templates and short forms are not something with which I always feel the most comfortable because I tend to be more comfortable with grammatical and punctuation type issues. 1995hoo (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Citation Bot at Elizabeth II

Hi DrKay, I allowed back citation bot on the Queen's article. I see you removed it back in 2018, so I thought I would let you know in case you want to add it back. But I imagine the bot has changed quite a bit since then, so hopefully any problem you had with it is since resolved. Regards, — AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Protection: Archie & Lilibet

Persistent vandal User:Brainyboy2012 is targetting Archie Mountbatten-Windsor and Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor. Please would you temporarily protect from edits and moves? DBD 18:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You are cordially invited: Talk:Archie Mountbatten-Windsor#Supposed "legal" titles. DBD 21:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Why is the Daily Mail not a reliable source? It’s a national newspaper! Heidi bradshaw (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

FCSB huge vandalism going on

Hello! This user has been wiping all the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Maximliviu7

End-of-season-updates (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Herald symbol

Not sure you understand our policy on this as an official symbol Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. But will let it be for now as I am thinking it's more that's it's Canadian then fair use. Moxy- 14:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Images must meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy. That image does not meet #1 (because there are over 50 other images on commons that could be used to illustrate the jubilee, including logos and official symbols) or #8 (it conveys no information that could not be conveyed otherwise by text or using a free official symbol from commons). DrKay (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

--Question--

--Question--

You wrote "we don't use Daily Mail as a source" on your edit for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II (14:16, 8 September 2022‎ DrKay talk contribs‎ 153,712 bytes −486‎) Is there a page that lists companies we are not allowed to use as a source on Wikipedia? I'm somewhat new to editing Wikipedia, and this "message of appreciation" was the only place I could find to ask you directly. It's the first time I have tried to communicate with another editor directly. Is there another way besides this "message of appreciation" that can be used to communicate directly with other editors? Many thanks in advance, @DrKay! Miyojewolt S Nasonth (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they're marked in red at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources.

When I am on a talk page, there is a tab at the top called 'New section'. I click on that, and it opens a new talk page section. The other way is to click 'Edit' which opens a window into which I can type raw code. DrKay (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

There may be differences depending on operating system/browser. There is further info at Help:Talk pages. DrKay (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply, @DrKay. I especially appreciated you passing to me the list found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources, particularly because it gives reasons why certain sources are not considered reliable rather than simply listing sources as "good" and/or "bad." I appreciate that because I am a firm believer in nuance.

Thank you as well for pointing out the "New Section" tab on talk pages. That will be useful. Miyojewolt S Nasonth (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Maiden names vs Article names for royal spouses/consorts in Infoboxes?

Hey DrKay,

I noticed you reverted my edit here on the name of Prince William's spouse. Your reason seems to be because the infobox lists name at time of marriage. I'm happy to be corrected, but can you please provide the guideline/policy for that? I've looked and can't find anything. WP:CONSORTS for example, says that the current title should be used for the naming of articles, but doesn't mention Infoboxes. While the style guide for infoboxes MOS:IB also doesn't offer much guidance, the Personbox [Template:Infobox person] actually does. Under "Blank Template with all parameters" is says that for spouse "use article title or common name." So what we currently have is a hyperlinked name in the Infobox which directs to an article with a different title. I know there are general rules about spouses. Just as there are also rules for royalty, nobility and even rules for British royalty - and consorts! So cross-referencing, extrapolating or actually finding the correct rule isn't always easy. But the current approach doesn't seem very intuitive or logical, not to mention, consistent. So I'm looking for some definitive WP policy guidance. I know it's likely out there, since we have rules for pretty much everything. But if you can point me in the right direction, so it's clearer to me - and so we get it right - I'd appreciate it. Many thanks for your help. Cheers! X4n6 (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I have explained more fully here. DrKay (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link & explanation. So now I'm wondering if in that context, it might be useful/provide more clarity to seek consensus for linking to the article title, but putting the maiden name in parens - so both are provided. For example, "Catherine, Princess of Wales (Catherine Middleton)." Or was that already discussed and dismissed? X4n6 (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Or just make maiden name its own category in the Infobox, used when appropriate. And less ambiguous than just spouse. X4n6 (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

'maiden name' in Template:Infobox royalty sounds the same as 'birth name', which is a parameter for the subject of the article not the spouse. I don't know how you would code for it in Template:Marriage, the code for that template is very complicated to my eye. DrKay (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

You perfectly expressed the "problem." On Catherine, Princess of Wales, the Infobox provides both her current name and title, as well as her birth name: which, as you noted, is her maiden name. However, on William, Prince of Wales, she is listed under spouse in the Infobox with just her maiden name, "Catherine Middleton," with no mention of her current name and title. But yet the hyperlink of her maiden name links to the article where her current name and title are used. So it seems a bit inconsistent and possibly confusing to the reader. As though we're saying she may still be referred to by her maiden name - which many American publications, notoriously, are still doing. I'm just trying to find a simple, consistent and dare I say, elegant solution. Also one that hopefully, does not fuel that common misbelief that continuing to use the maiden name of a married and titled royal (and mother of 3), is somehow still appropriate. I mean, folks are still calling Camilla by her first husband's surname and she's now queen consort. Yikes. So I think at least in WP's own space, as an encyclopedia, we should endeavor to get it right. X4n6 (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem. I think you're focusing on a very few articles where you disagree with use of the maiden name. The vast majority of royalty articles use pre-marital names and no-one complains or even notices. We say 'Alexandra of Denmark' not 'Queen Alexandra', 'Mary of Teck' not 'Queen Mary', etc. DrKay (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Your response indicates my concern lacked clarity. Since neither Alexandra of Denmark nor Mary of Teck were born commoners, their examples don't illustrate the point I was trying to make. Also, WP gives different rules for living vs. deceased consorts, at CONSORTS. But my concern relates specifically to living or recently deceased British royals who were commoners at birth, and whose birth, maiden or previously married names continue to be used on the spouse line in Infoboxes rather than their current titles. Unlike the guidance found, for example, for article names at NCBRITPEER. So Camila Parker Bowles (not even Camila Shand), Sarah Ferguson, Catherine Middleton, Meghan Markle and Diana Spencer all appear on the spouse lines. Curiously, Diana Spencer also appears on the mother line in both William and Harry's Infoboxes, even though she was already Princess of Wales at both their births. Not quite sure what the rationale is for that. What's more, in the Infobox for Diana, Princess of Wales for her spouse it reads "Charles, Prince of Wales (later Charles III)." So there's not even consistency from article to article. However, since you mentioned this was all decided in consensus, would you be able to point me to that discussion so I can read it without bothering you further? X4n6 (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The style guide for British royalty articles is at Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty/Style guide, which has consistently applied the spouse's own name in the infobox rather than one derived from the article subject since its inception.

The same style guide mandates the mother's own name for the mother's field, which has been stable for over 7 years. Further discussion is archived at Talk:Prince Louis of Wales/Archive 1#Mother's name.

Article titles are a separate thing. DrKay (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Huge thanks for the research. As you're aware, that "style guide" is just an essay, not a guideline or policy. But since you say it's still being followed after all these years, I'll definitely review it and the discussion archive. Thanks for your patience and helpfulness, despite what you've likely viewed as pedantry. So I won't bug you with this again. The witness may be excused - as you've suffered enough! Be well. X4n6 (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Commonwealth realms

Hello DrKay can you replace the royal standers on the current realms as there will be new standers soon and can you put the royal standard of the united kingdom back that royal standard doesn't change thank you 2603:8001:2902:64F4:184A:B865:6DCE:1133 (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Micronations

hello dr kay

I am new to this and wanted to add the confederated empire principality of the northern forrests and commonwealth of Dracul as all these nations are quite notable in the micronational community and they are not even mentioned they have all gained lands buisnesses and currenxcies and governments and are making huge strides twords independence and all that is on the page is mostly nations from 20 to 30 years ago. Brycelpro89 (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also im sure the older people who madethe first encyclopedia were upset when their articles got added to but things change and powers rise and fall should I add a section that says modern active micronations? Have you ever went to micro con or met withany of the people in that world? I have met quite a few while doing research for my 5th book that will be out soon "Let Freedom Ring, micronations and the search for independence".

Brycelpro89 (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

George of Wales

Thank you DrKay for your revision, I did not know that the picture uploaded was copyright. BettyCrocker321 (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

William, Prince of Wales

Hello DrKay! I'm sure you'd soon be aware of this anyway, but as you have recently been involved in edits to the form of Prince William's name in the first line of his article, I am informing you that I have begin a talk page discussion on the topic. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

"The silliness has already started"

I see that you made the blue lock protection for Elizabeth II indefinite, stating that "the silliness has already started". Can you elaborate on how the "silliness has started", such as any notable vandalism incidents? And yes I know that the article is a target for vandalism. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 13:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Carlos, Duke of of Madrid

May I ask why you keep reverting this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.254.105 (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Revert on Wallis Simpson

I would appreciate more information on why you reverted my recent edit to this page. The paragraph I removed would seem to have a rather unencyclopaedic, even dramatic, tone that feels like it would better belong in a hagiography. Liam McM 08:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It's the standard academic consensus. DrKay (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Margaret's ashes

Hi DrKay. I was wondering if you could help with solving the problem surrounding the date on which Margaret's ashes were interred in her father's tomb. This article by The Times, dated 15 February 2002, claims that the ashes were directly interred next to her father's coffin. This article by the BBC, also dated 15 February 2002, says that the ashes were placed in the Royal Vault. Then on 10 April 2002, this article by the BBC, states that the Queen Mother was interred next to her husband, while ashes of 'Princess Margaret, who died in February, were interred at the same time in the Royal Vault.' Could this be simply an error? Because it makes perfect sense for the ashes to be placed in her parents' grave after her mother's death, the same way Philip is being moved to be buried next to Elizabeth II after her death. Also, it's clear that Margaret is buried alongside her parents in the King George VI Memorial Chapel, but the sources are making it confusing when it comes to the date. Another source cited in the section on Margaret's death is the book by Christopher Warwick, pp. 306–308. Does this book or any other print sources that you might have access to paint a clearer picture of what actually happened with the ashes? Keivan.f^Talk 17:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

No, sorry. I have no more insight than I did 6 years ago[12]. DrKay (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the response. I remembered that I had discussed the matter with someone in the past, but I wasn't sure if it were you. I will post this information on the article's talk page then to see if anyone else could clarify the matter. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 04:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I think I was right. It's the sources that have confused the Royal Vault with King George VI Memorial Chapel. This article by The Irish Times, dated 13 February 2002, says that "her ashes will be placed in a casket beside the coffin of her father, the late King George VI, in the castle's Royal Vault," which is technically incorrect. And then this article by Irish Examiner, dated 31 March 2002, clarifies the matter by saying "Princess Margaret's ashes are expected to be interred with the Queen Mother's coffin in the George VI Memorial Chapel at Windsor." So, I think the dates we have in the infobox are correct. I will now just include sources that provide accurate information. Keivan.f^Talk 05:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Why is the Daily Mail not a reliable source? It’s a national newspaper! What is your definition of a reliable source? Heidi bradshaw (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

See WP:DAILYFAIL. DrKay (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible sock of AJ DA YOUNGAN

Hi. You've been blocking the socks of this guy for a couple of years now. Could you check User:Tony da don, please? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The last sock I'm aware of (I've been away from full editing for a while) is User:Nick da sicilian, indeffed on 1/31/22 by Favonian. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

No problem. DrKay (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Catherine, Princess of Wales

As William is the Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn & Baron Carrickfergus, Catherine is entitled to the feminine version of each one of his titles. Should I add an article about the titles received by William in 2011 as source? Maria0215 (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

No. That's not the issue, which has been explained so many times before I am incredulous that you don't know what the issue is. Look at the talk page archives, e.g. Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales/Archive 8#Baroness Carrickfergus DrKay (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Apology for Edit War

Hello DrKay,

I just wanted to apologise for the edit war yesterday at Charles III, I let it get the better of me. I should have stepped back and considered the point you were making rather than becoming protective of my edits, because you were making valid points — I wasn't editing in the spirit on the ongoing RfC. I appreciate your experience and efforts to improve the articles you work on.

If you can accept my apology then I look forward to working together productively on many more articles. Thank you, A.D.Hope (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course, I am happy to reciprocate with an apology and future collaboration. DrKay (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you :) A.D.Hope (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

"Logan" at Tuileries Palace

• Logan da dude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Logan815 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tuileries Palace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I noticed you blocked an editor named Logan da dude a few months ago for block evasion. The editor was active at Tuileries Palace, which you also semi-protected for a few months due to persistent sockpuppetry.

Within a day of the semi-protection expiring, an editor named Logan815 began editing the article, making the same type of edits that Logan da dude made. Given the editing behavior and the similar usernames, I'm thinking they are probably the same person. Would you mind taking a look? (I figured I'd ask you instead of taking this to SPI since I'm not sure who the master is. However, I am open to filing an SPI case if you prefer that I go that route.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Increase in protection level

Hi DrKay. I don't know if it's possible to make an appeal directly to an administrator or not, but I think Oprah with Meghan and Harry needs to be protected immediately. It had been under protection for a year and now the occasional silliness has started to show up, with people removing stuff and making amendments as they please. This is a very sensitive topic, and rather recent, so I would urge you to do something about it, maybe by enforcing some sort of protection. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 19:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

As I am not doing intentionally, I have done legitimate changes that will not make problem. Because I want to contribute towards Wikepedia to make articles better and reliable. Atharva Jawalkar (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)