User talk:DrKay

Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 • Backlog

Edit conflict

We both worked on it at the same time—Sandy had just asked me to have a go. I seem to have made a much bigger set of changes. Please let me know what you think? The shorter the better, I think. Tony 14:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Tony 13:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feeder (band)

Hi!, thanks for the feedback on the article. I have re-written it into a new clearer version, as the previous one went all over the place. At the moment I have not added any references, and will put these in later :).

As it looks, do you think the prose is clear and concise enough for a featured article, or does it need some more padding? :). I will worry about extra images after I've got the prose okayed.

Also, which statements do I need to citate in the article?. As I've seen featured articles that do not have all their statements citated :). Marcus Bowen 19:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again!, just cleaned up the citations. Is the article well citated, or are there any mistakes regarding my citations in the lead?, as after all, I could move the citated statement references to the mentions in the main article, or is it better leaving it there?. Have I over citated statements, or done too less?. Also, is the prose decent, or shall it need cleaning up?.Marcus Bowen 10:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback!! :D. What sort of images should I include with the article?, and would audio clips be a good idea to demonstrate the development in the bands sound?.Marcus Bowen 10:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!, what so you think of the artivle now?, worth nominating again? :). Marcus Bowen 19:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it

Got it, thanks! -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well

You can keep making your argument as often as you like, but the point that "there is no active dispute" is a matter of fact, not opinion (regardless of whether you like that fact). The "disputedtag" is for active disputes. This isn't one, and in an encyclopedia, facts trump opinion any day. >Radiant< 13:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock On, Radiant!--Kidd Chris 19:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Kidd Chris[reply]

How exactly can an accurate description of common practice not be consensual? >Radiant< 10:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting that you're unwilling to respond to that. But you are mistaken about what "guidelines" are; an accurate description of current practice on Wikipedia is by definition a guideline, because that's all guidelines are. >Radiant< 08:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago Martinez Delgado

Dear DrKiernan great advice I had done what I could. Can you go ahead and make the grammar revisions? Also let me know of any other suggestions. I will be working on other Colombian artists after I am done with this article so don’t be surprise If I come back to you for advice. Thank you very much (Pgehr 13:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/William the Silent

Hi DrK. Do you have any comment on this FAR? Not much has been said. Shame, because it seems a comprehensive article but the sourcing stops after the second section. Cheers, Marskell 07:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi raj

Thanks for deleting that. May I ask: was that indeed the same person? The Evil Spartan 15:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, yes—User:Ieraj007. DrKiernan 15:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we're miscommunicating. I meant: was it the same person as who wrote the article 2 years ago? The Evil Spartan 15:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wallis, Duchess of Windsor

Hey. That makes a bit more sense. However, I'd call that a "significant" modification, rather than a "slight" one. Ha. Cheers. --Evb-wiki 12:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occupations of Latvia

Hi, I noticed your entried at the Digwuren's ArbCom. As your user page states that you are a University Academic and due to your impressive contributions to various history articles I wonder whether you have time and interest to take a look at the Occupations of Latvia article. This article has been a subject of a protracted dispute, one ArbCom and a very lengthy talk page discussion. If you could possibly read whatever much you have time for and comment at the article's talk, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance, --Irpen 08:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

for helping with that talk page. I just don't understand why it did not show my signature, I always sign my comments. What was the problem there? Squash Racket 15:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good monarch ref needed

Do you have any suggestions for a book or two on all the English/British monarch’s? I have a couple, but each only gives a few pages per monarch. I’d like to have at least one quality reference that has 10 to 20 pages devoted to each person. Thanks :) --mav 18:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Congratulations on the promotion of Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine. I knew nothing about her before I saw the name on the FA list. I enjoyed the article, and I was impressed with the quality of your writing and research. Karanacs 19:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Featured article

Can you explain this edit [1]? The previous version seems to work fine in all major browsers. What issue were you having with it? --- RockMFR 21:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of talk page for Tom Stearns

Hello, You have deleted the page Tom Stearns and the talk page for the Tom Stearns page. I disagreed with the speedy deletion suggestion for the page Tom Stearns, and I put my reasons in the associated talk page. Please undelete the talk page for Tom Stearns, because it is the appropriate location for an ongoing discussion about the deletability of Tom Stearns. If you do not do this, I will go to the delete forum &/or the forums for discussing your behavior as administrator. Thank you. Peterchristopher 08:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tom Stearns (talk). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Peterchristopher 05:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of Stephanie Hall

Hello,

I was curious why this page was deleted? I am new to this, can you assist me in getting the proper page published?

Thanks, MusicNews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.255.86 (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May Lee

Is this move going ahead? It's several days since you moved the other article, and it's no longer listed at WP:RM, even though the debate is still open. PC78 12:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George III

Hi, DrKiernan. I don't think we can make an affirmative assertion in an article without a source supporting it. Your version seems to assert that it was the X-Files that created the story. We don't know if it's true. Can't assume it--it's Original Research.--TigranTheGreat 21:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]