User talk:DrKay

Main page appearance: Francis Walsingham

This is a note to let the main editors of Francis Walsingham know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 24, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 24, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Francis Walsingham (c.1532–1590) was principal secretary to Queen Elizabeth I of England from 20 December 1573 until his death, and is popularly remembered as her "spymaster". A committed Protestant, during the reign of the Catholic Queen Mary I of England he joined other expatriates in exile in Switzerland and northern Italy until Mary's death and the accession of her Protestant half-sister, Elizabeth. Walsingham rose from relative obscurity to become one of the small coterie who directed the Elizabethan state, overseeing foreign, domestic and religious policy. He served as English ambassador to France in the early 1570s, and witnessed the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. As principal secretary, he was a supporter of exploration, colonization, the plantation of Ireland, and the use of England's maritime power. He worked to bring Scotland and England together. Overall, his foreign policy demonstrated a new understanding of the role of England as a maritime, Protestant power in an increasingly global economy. He oversaw operations that penetrated the heart of Spanish military preparation, gathered intelligence from across Europe, disrupted a range of plots against Elizabeth, and secured the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Images of the article of Diana, Princess of Wales

Hi dear DrK! Sorry for taking your precious time. As you are a really good editor, I'm here to ask for a help from you. Surely you know when an image should be used on the article and which images are unnecessary to use and which of them are important, so it will be really good if you take a look at the article of Diana, Princess of Wales. The pictures are to many and I don't know which of them should be removed, but you know what to do. If all of them are necessary, there is no need to remove them, but if you think some of them are unnecessary, please remove them yourself. Thank you very much. Keivan.f^Talk 20:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Now I think there's no need, because I removed some pictures and I sorted them. However, I will be very happy to know your opinion and if you think some pictures must be removed, please tell me. Keivan.f^Talk 07:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you should cut File:Princess do.jpg: it doesn't have a fair use rationale or any author information. I also think you should remove the Moldovan stamps (File:Stamp of Moldova 375.gif) as these do not appear to fall in the public domain (there's an argument about it on commons). Even if the stamps are themselves in the public domain in Moldova, the images on the stamps are almost certainly not in the public domain in the United States since the individual photographs are from copyrighted sources that the Moldovan authorities have copied. DrKiernan (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I also had another question. Should I add the name of Sarah to the Template:British Royal Family agian? I also can write the sources which show that she is still a member. Also the template says that we should add the name of sovereign and all living princes and princesses, so we should add the name of Sarah as she is a British princess by marriage and mother of two British princesses by blood, am I wrong? Keivan.f^Talk 20:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Dan was against it, and I can't see a way to compromise or develop a clear consensus on the issue. Personally, I can see that she at least was a member so I don't mind if she's included, but I can also see that she is currently a semi-detached member at best so I understand Dan's reluctance to include her. Unlike the rest of the family, she isn't included in any public royal events as far as I can make out. DrKiernan (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: your request

You didn't want to go underdressed, try this ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Monstrous carbuncle

Thanks for sensible re-edit - I think that solves the problem!FClef (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Mumia Abu-Jamal Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

My files

Isn't it just like you to follow me around. Let me make this clear, I will not allow a speedy tag on my file. It was wrongly deleted and there was zero support for that decision, two keeps and only one delete. Get proper consensus for it to go, or leave it alone. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You should have taken it to deletion review rather than re-upload it. Either way, the uploader is not supposed to remove the tag. A third-party may do so. DrKiernan (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you've also broken your 1RR restriction on that file. DrKiernan (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Your incredible work has not gone unnoticed.

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your ongoing massive efforts ! wow ! ThomasMoore1852 (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I was investigation some minor vandalism on the Lord Byron article and the resources at my disposal led me immediately to you, and in turn your incredible efforts in anti-vandalism.

		The tireless cybernetic contributor Barnstar
		I would like to acknowledge the vast amount of work that you're getting done through the use of software-enhanced editing, keep up the great work. ThomasMoore1852 (talk) 20:31, 15 Dec 2024 (UTC)_

ThomasMoore1852 (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Mumia Abu-Jamal

This is a note to let the main editors of Mumia Abu-Jamal know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 11, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 11, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Mumia Abu-Jamal (born Wesley Cook on April 24, 1954) is an American convict, serving a life sentence for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. He was sentenced to death at his first trial in July 1982, and his case became an international cause célèbre. Before his arrest, he was an activist and radio journalist who became President of the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists. He was a member of the Black Panther Party until October 1970. Supporters and opponents disagreed on the appropriateness of the death penalty, his guilt, and whether he received a fair trial. He was described as "perhaps the world's best known death-row inmate". During his imprisonment he has published several books and other commentaries, notably Live from Death Row (1995). In 2008, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the murder conviction but ordered a new capital sentencing hearing because the jury was improperly instructed. Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court also allowed his conviction to stand but ordered the appeals court to reconsider its decision as to the sentence. In 2011, the Third Circuit again affirmed the conviction as well as its decision to vacate the death sentence, and the District Attorney of Philadelphia announced that prosecutors would no longer seek the death penalty. He was removed from death row in January 2012.(more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Monarchy of the UK

Thanks for your changes to my editing. You're a better writer than I am! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I answered to your remark on the talkpage of Monarchy of the United Kingdom. Sorry it took me many editing but I think it is worth to look at. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

How many times have we had this discussion?

If you keep removing them over nitpicking details like the colour of the crown, but are unable to provide a source against it, that makes it your personal opinion. If you keep treating these articles like your property rather than a colaborative project, I'll take it to dispute resolution. You DO NOT own these articles, you do not get to command what stays and what goes. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "User:Fry1989, User:DrKiernan". Thank you. --Fry1989 ^eh? 19:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

DRN thread

Hello there DrKiernan. I've left a message at User talk:Fry1989#DRN thread about the possibility of reopening the DRN thread. Let me know what you think. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 02:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

William of Orange

Regarding this, just thought it was appropriate considering the standing Mr Orange has amongst that section of the community in NI. — JonC^ॐ 10:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Lilpepper

Hey DrKiernan, I saw you blocked User:Lilpepper for 31 hours due to vandalism. Is it possible to extend it to indefinite because it looks like a WP:VOA. Thanks. -- Luke (Talk) 19:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Confused....

I noticed that you had edited the Barakzai dynasty article(back in May), so I thought I would seek your advice. It states the Durrani Empire fell in 1826, yet on the Durrani Empire article it states 1978 in the info box!? And should not the Emirate of Afghanistan article be merged with the Barakzai dynasty article? Are they not one and the same?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Pedro I of Brazil

Thank you for taking the time to go through the article and making corrections. Your edits have certainly saved me some time. • Astynax ^talk 09:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I also wanted to ask whether you have any objection to being listed as a co-nominator on the FAC? I don't know if you have any other articles nominated at this time, or I would have included you. • Astynax ^talk 15:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a very generous offer. I would naturally be very pleased to be included, but if Lecen objects then I would respect his wishes. Unfortunately, we were getting on well until May when I put my foot badly in it with an ill-judged comment, and now our levels of trust have sank again. DrKiernan (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response, as I wished to take care of that before the nomination went on further. I just emailed Lecen and he has no objection to you being included as a co-nominator. I hope the FAC process will go smoothly, and I thank you again for your help with the article. • Astynax ^talk 15:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help during the FAC process. The article has now been promoted! Congratulations. • Astynax ^talk 15:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Coming as requested, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Edward VII, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philip Magnus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Princess Carolina of Orange-Nassau

I am going through a list of articles (there are about 1000 of them) with AWB which include a link to "http:genealogy.euweb.cz" requesting to them better source.

When I arrived at Princess Carolina of Orange-Nassau I noticed that you had edited the article and removed the unreliable sources, replacing some of them with reliable ones. On the whole I think that this is a positive step. The trouble is that some of the facts that were supported with unreliable sources no longer have any citation.

As I see it there are three options open to us:

1. Remove the unreliable sources but leave text that may be correct in place.
2. Remove the unreliable sources all the text which was previously supported by unreliable sources and is not supported by the new reliable source.
3. Note the source as unreliable and request a better source, leaving what may or may not turn out to be information that can be supported by reliable sources and a date stamp so after a suitable period of time the citation and text that is allegedly supported by the citation can be removed.

With an seni-automated tool such as AWB, I have gone for the option number 3, as I hope it will prompt editors who watch the page to look for a better source such as you have done, but in the meantime it allows the reader to see that the facts may not be reliable. There is a list of useful templates on the documentation page of {{Citation needed}} the two I am using are {{Self-published source}} and{{Better source}}. -- PBS (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Since removing them from Carolina, I've started moving them inline when appropriate: e.g. [1]. DrKiernan (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Two questions!

First: Was Sarah a member of the Royal Family Order of Queen Elizabeth II? I think as the daughter-in-law of the Queen, she was a member, What do you think? and also, did she have any honour or honorary military appointments?

I can't find any listed anywhere.

Second: Was Wallis Simpson a British princess by marriage and a member of the British Royal Family? Should we add her name in the British Royal Family tree, List of members of the British Royal Family through history and Template: British princesses by marriage? Keivan.f^Talk 11:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the letters patent in 1937 that exclude her from holding royal styles can be read as also excluding her from being a princess or a member of the royal family. DrKiernan (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. Keivan.f^Talk 07:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Another question

Hello, I just translated to the Spanish the article of Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale, and my desire is to be featured article in Spanish. I have a question about the sentence: "Rumours that Prince Albert Victor may have committed, or been responsible for, the Jack the Ripper murders were first mentioned in print in 1962." Who wrote about the association with the Ripper in 1962? I thought that Stowwell in 1970 had been the first one. Thanks in advance.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This used to be detailed in the article Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories, which was merged into Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution. I've copied it out from an old version for you below. DrKiernan (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

In 1962, author Philippe Jullian published a biography of Prince Albert Victor's father, in which he made a passing reference to rumours that Albert Victor might have been responsible for the murders. Jullian's book appears to be the first published reference naming Albert Victor as a Ripper suspect. Though Jullian did not detail either the date or source of the rumours, it is possible that the rumour derived indirectly from Dr. Thomas Eldon Alexander Stowell, even though Stowell's own suspicions were at that time unpublished. In 1960, Stowell had shared his theory with the writer Colin Wilson, who in turn told Harold Nicolson, a biographer loosely credited as a source of "hitherto unpublished anecdotes" in Jullian's book. Nicolson could have communicated Stowell's theory to Jullian.

One more: Is Yvonne Demoskoff a reliable source? Why? --Rosymonterrey (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think she's useful as a starting point, but I don't think she's usable as a source herself. You've got to see where she gets her information from (she usually gives her sources). If her source is reliable (i.e. a book or newspaper), then I usually check the book or newspaper itself and use that. If her source is a web forum or an email message from another enthusiast, then I don't use it. DrKiernan (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I thank you so much. I live in Mexico and I have no access to sources like that, so in details that I do not know I have to rely on the author of the original version. Sorry for my bad English.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your English is fine. For Albert Victor, Yvonne has given lots of print sources, so I think we can safely assume that the information is correct. I probably checked it against The Times report at some time. DrKiernan (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Appearance

Another crowned lady coming soon, - I could imagine the blurb to mention Elizabeth ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Monarchy templates

Why do you change the template colours of Australia and New Zealand? I am think having colour like Canada will make it better than a boring plain grey.Mr Hall of England (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Because of accessibility issues. On the color of the upper bar, yellow writing on green is difficult to read, particularly for color-blind users, and the contrast between grey and black is not always clear. On the color of the links, links should be obvious as links, but they are not obvious if they appear as black type, as that looks like ordinary text. DrKiernan (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother

Please see my explanation for edit revert on Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother on Talk:Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Thanks Castlemate (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please explain your changes to Template:British ministries

Where are you getting your information with regards to the colour? This has been as it was for a while, as a way to match the national colours of the UK. It made the template stand out, after I had finished cleaning it up from the mess it was before. You must provide a better explanation before you do such a thing. RGloucester (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The IP that made the change gave no justification [2]. There should be justification for a template to deviate from standard colors and styles.

The national colors of Britain are not red, black, blue, mauve and white. The project uses standard colors: Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Templates, not the same scheme as used by WikiProject Canada. DrKiernan (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

An IP did not make the change, I did, long before the IP touched anything. Look at all my edits on the template. I did it to make the template stand out, and while the colours are not the “exact” colours, they are the closest I could find. Red, white and blue. I’m the one that cleaned up the template, it looked entirely different prior to me doing what I did. Nowhere at that page you mention does it say that non-standard colours cannot be used. I even mentioned it in my edit change, somewhere. I think my justification is adequate. And the template is does not deviate from any project rules. RGloucester (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

An IP made the edit on 11 May. The edit involved is linked above in a diff. There are no edits altering the color before that. DrKiernan (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Bizarre, but that IP has to be me. Somehow I must’ve not been logged in for a short time. It was only on 11 May that that IP made edits, and only in a short time. My mistake, I suppose. All the edits it made are definitely mine. Regardless, the rest of what I wrote still stands. RGloucester (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Here I am, again bothering. I have translated several articles about members of the royalty of the United Kingdom, some of them have reached GA or FA status and I still translating others. As you're involved in the creation of many of them and have access to the sources, I'm afraid you're going to see me a lot.

I've fixed a Legacy section of Albert Victor article with the information that you gave me, later I researched and found other sources about that. My questions now are:

• Which is the date of the commitment of Albet Victor and Mary of Teck? In the articles of Mary and Albert says December of 1891, but in the article of Edward VII says that in 1982 (this is a little difficult because Albert died in January of 1892).

• In the Spanish Wikipedia we can't use nobility titles in the articles name. I can't name the article Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale. The Albert article was titled Albert Victor of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, but someone moved it to Albert Victor of Clarence. Is it correct?

Thanks a lot!... And thank you also for your comments about my English, you're very kind ;)--Rosymonterrey (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

One more thing. Can I move this image to Commons? --Rosymonterrey (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing out that discrepancy -- I've corrected the Edward VII article.
• I don't really know what the rules are for article titles on the Spanish wikipedia. They seem to make up their own titles rather than use the most common name, which seems to be "Albert Victor, duque de Clarence"?
• I'm sure moving the file is fine. DrKiernan (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Milhist coord?

Hey DrK, we've had a request for more coords to cover diverse periods and regions ... being a coord might help you focus some attention on royalty and nobility articles. Interested? (I just skimmed your talk page and some links ... really impressive range of skills and activities!) - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

One more thing ... Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre looks good now, if you're interested in reviewing it at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 18:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth's sister

That's not removed information. I noticed most articles are written like that. If anything, noting that her sister was four years younger would be a considerable improvement. The only difference I see is that people will perhaps have questions about her having another sibling, although since no others are mentioned this would be acceptable. I decided to revert, please let me know if you have any conflict with that. Spelling Style (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course the book was not written about 1950. Did I learn this incorrectly? It's supposed to be common to refer to things by their years, ex. "She wrote a 2010 biography regarding her career" doesn't mean it was about 2010. It's the same thing, she published a book in 2010. I still fail to see your logic in removing my edits. Spelling Style (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Your absolute insistence on GDR flag and coat with gold instead of black

I do not understand why it is so difficult for you to simply upload over the current flag and coat of arms files we have on Commons. If you and that other user are right, then the process should be as easy as cherry pie. Instead you chose to upload it separately twice causing a version war (whether that was your intent or not), and now uploading it locally to bypass the Commons files. It makes no sense why you consistently choose to take a ten mile walk when all you gotta do it walk around the block. You seem to love doing things ten times more difficult than they need to be. All you had to do was go to the files' talk page, discuss the issue, and as long as there is a simple consensus or no objections, change the files and presto. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Then change the files. DrKiernan (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It's very flattering that you hold me in such high regard that you think it can't be done without my consent, but I really hold very little power outside of the agreement of others. I may object to the change to gold, but my objection means nothing if others agree with you. If you're right, then getting that agreement would be incredibly easy. Just look at the second DR, I spoke of due process, something you obviously have no faith in or else you'd give it a try. This is incredibly childish to upload separately 3 times now instead of taking the easy path. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There is consensus at [3]: four editors are agreed and one—you—has disagreed. I'm fed up with your hypocrisy and lies. Don't come to my talk page again unless it is to tell me that you have reverted to the official version in compliance with consensus on the talk page, in which case the file in dispute can remain deleted as a duplicate. DrKiernan (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If there is such a consensus, go change the damn file and stop being lazy telling me I have to do your job for you! Nobody says I have to agree with you, and I certainly don't have to do your work for you for it to be done. Put in an ounce of work you'll get a pound of success. You're the one who has such little faith in the process that you think I'll stand in your way to such a degree that things can't be done unless I sign on. I certainly think you';re wrong, but that won't stop you from succeeding if you're right. Whether you think so or not, I actually do respect consensus, begrudgingly or not. And don't tell me I can't come to your talk page, you can't ban me from talking to you about an issue YOU caused. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As you may have inferred from the first deletion request, my personal preference is to have both files. I see no reason for either file to be deleted. As far as I'm concerned, each project/editor can decide for themselves which of the two versions they prefer. DrKiernan (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to step in on this issue. I do not have a lot of information about the DDR symbols and this is something I will try and get better info on when I can. However, if you are wanting to try and upload a copy to use on the project, I suggest getting a new name. Overwriting Commons files is something that is discouraged; I do hope to figure out a solution about the DDR arms and their colors in due time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't overwritten a commons file. DrKiernan (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What I meant by the overwriting was the uploading of the file with the same name to here, like you did at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/File:Flag_of_German_Democratic_Republic.svg User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There was no file of the same name at commons when I uploaded the image here. DrKiernan (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok; I am trying to figure all of this out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Manners, 12th Baron de Ros, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Felton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Your recent editing history at Mary of Teck shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -Scottywong| yak _ 17:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The other party in the edit war has been blocked, and while I could have blocked you as well, it would seem counter-productive as you were clearly defending the article against poor edits. However, in the future, please be aware that WP:3RR applies to all reverts except for blatant vandalism (which this wasn't) and a few other specific situations. In the future, please contact an admin or post at ANI before you go over the 3RR line, if only to avoid being blocked yourself. -Scottywong| comment _ 17:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles, Prince of Wales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Advertising Standards Authority (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Norwegian monarchs

Could you give your opinion on Talk:Harald II of Norway#Request move?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Hello - you closed the RM at Talk:Democratic Republic of the Congo as not moved. Would you mind explaining your rationale in light of my arguments that the oppose !votes were not following WP policy or practice? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner and the ngram shows that it is a common name. The inclusion of a definite article is not an issue of bias. The arguments for change are insufficient to overturn the status quo. DrKiernan (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I agree that it is a common name. But the ngram shows that the version without "the" is the most common name in English. Doesn't that mean that WP:COMMONNAME favors that version, and the people favoring the status quo should make a policy-based argument as to why we should use a less common name for the title? Dohn joe (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't interpret WP:COMMONNAME as meaning we must use the most common name from google searches. If we did then, Albert Einstein would be at Einstein and Adolf Hitler at Hitler. The guideline suggests looking at international organisations and encyclopedias, which is what Kauffner did. The difference in frequency between the form with the definite article and the form without in google searches is insufficient for me to force a page move when there are clearly a large number of reliable sources using the current form. It is a common name that is recognisable, precise and natural. DrKiernan (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Ngrams are not google searches - they're taken from Google Books, not the internet as a whole. And this is not the same situation as "Albert Einstein" vs. "Einstein" at all. These were two encyclopedic-register titles (nobody was arguing for DRC or some other informal name). As for the guideline, it does say to look at international groups and encyclopedias - but it also says to look at major media outlets, which the original proposer did, and which favor the non-"the" name. Both names here are recognizable, precise, and natural - the version without "the" just also happens to be more common. They're both good titles - from a policy standpoint, "Democratic Republic of Congo" is simply better, though, isn't it? Dohn joe (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The difference in frequency is insufficient to force a move. To convince editors to change an established, recognisable, precise, natural, common article name to a new one, I think you'd need the new name to be very substantially more common over a long timespan. DrKiernan (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

One last question. If the situation were reversed - the page titled "Democratic Republic of Congo" with an RM to "Democratic Republic of the Congo" - and the same arguments were made on the talk page, would you have moved it? Dohn joe (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No. DrKiernan (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. Dohn joe (talk)

George II of Great Britain

May I nominate George II of Great Britain for today's featured article?--Lucky102 (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly. DrKiernan (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

just scheduled, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Resubmit or relist?

Hi, not quite sure what if anything to do now with Talk:Julio_César_Campozano#Requested_move? Should I withdraw and resubmit with just the last 3 names - or do you want to relist adjusting the proposal as appropriate? I see it was a rather confusing proposal compared to Talk:Milton_Núñez_(boxer) anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want me to close it now, then I'll close it as no move for the last three names, leaving Fyunck to renominate Campozano if s/he wants to remove the remaining accent or you to renominate the last 3 in a new proposal. DrKiernan (talk) 07:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

Hi,
I have started a thread on AN/I about possible problems with undiscussed moves, and it mentions the Senate of Pakistan RM which you were involved in. Your input would be welcome. bobrayner (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Might as well re-use this section; please see:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Fry1989 and DrKiernan

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

An apology

I am sorry I called you a troll on my Commons talk page. I don't like you because of past issues, but that's not an excuse for what I said and I have retracted it. I didn't follow you around, and I want you to believe that, I really do go through the upload logs daily, I wasn't hunting for you. Please believe me, it's the truth. Please ask for that AN/I to stop, for Br'er Rabbit to stop his fight to get me indeffed, and I'll never attack you again. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Contested closure of move request (Talk:Crimean Karaites)

Dear DrKiernan, You wrote in your closeing text:

" Toddy1 shows that the terms Karaim and Karaite are not distinguished in English, so arguments on the basis of difference in meaning (al-Shimoni, Kaz) are unconvincing. This leaves arguments on common name. Kaz says the common name is Karaim, but Toddy1 provides a link to a google book search showing more than 1300 hits for "Crimean Karaites", whereas Kaz provides a link showing 234 books containing "Karaims". Hence, on the evidence presented in this discussion, common name would favor the present title. In the absence of a clear difference in meaning, and with "Crimean Karaites" being apparently more common in English-language scholarly sources than "Karaims", then "Karaims" should redirect here. "

There are some problems with this comment.

1. The term Karaim has several meanings and does not always mean Karaites. In Hebrew it is a plural noun meaning Karaite Jews, but in linguistics it is only an adjective referring to the language of a Kypchaq Tatar ethnic group. Both words are used in English with different meanings. Only sub-standard scholarship fails to differentiate between the two, as pointed out by the peer reviewer on the subject by the Russian Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences (a copy of which you can read online here [4] using google translate).
2. Karaim is a Hebrew plural word which in English would be Karaites. But the term Karaims is an English word which in Hebrew would be Karaimim. It is only translated into English as Karaites by sloppy translators who fall under the criticism of the Russian Academy of Sciences mentioned above. The two subjects are distinct and incomparable.
3. There is already an article about Karaim where Karaite Jews (Jewish Karaites) is meant, so if Crimean Karaites are just a branch of the Karaim meaning Karaite Jews (Jewish Karaites) then the article should be merged with the Karaite Jews article just as the Spanish Karaites are a subsection of the Jewish Karaites article.
4. None of the links Toddy provided show 1300 hits on google books. If you check the link you will see that his claims are deceptive as although he says he is using Google books in fact several times he has simply provided a Google web-search result and not a Google books result. As Toddy1 points out himself, however, clicking through the page hits one at a time to the last page (tedious but important) reveals a quite different number at the last page to the claimed result on the first page. Using the method AjaxSmack used, and believing the claim on the front page of a google-book search yields 4,920 for Karaims, making WP:UCN clearly infavour of Karaims not Crimean Karaites.

Either all disambiguation pages on this matter need to be deleted and re-directed to one article on Karaite Judaism which should include merged sub-sections, (if your adjudication is correct) or Karaims (where Karaim alone is adjectival and singular) and Karaim (which is a plural noun equivalent to the english word Karaites where Karaite is singular and adjectival) are distinct, and the disambiguation pages need to reflect this distinction. It is pure and simply misleading to the public to redirect all pagers about Karaimism (distinct from Karaism) and the Karaims (distinct from Karaim) to pages on Karaite Judaism. Please consider this recent edit by user Toddy1 [5] you can see clear POV pushing here to hide anything about the history of this endangered Tatar ethnic group. I suggest that your adjudication against the majority understanding has inadvertently served a skilfully deceptive editor's sly agenda. The objective voice of all the users at this IP address have all been censored under the excuse of sock-puppetry and disruptive editing. But unlike user Toddy1 we do not lie about our agenda, neither do we lie about google book results, nor misuse sources. Toddy1 has supporters who want him to get enough kudos to become an admin because he has already changed his username once if you look at his very first edits you can see whose sock-puppet he really is. Unfortunately wikipedia outing policies do not allow us to identify him. We beg you to reconsider and think about the consequences of supporting this man in his campaign to re-write history. 62.255.75.224 (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This is all very confusing to a layperson. I'm still confident that you do not sufficient support in the move discussion to move the page. I can only suggest that you try to agree on terminology as a first step. Keep things simple by taking each word in turn so that discussion remains focused. Keep your posts concise, focused on a single point, written using simple syntax, and supported with sources. As this is a subject area outside of my area of expertise, I'm not comfortable contributing further to the content issues. I'm sorry to abandon you to your own devices, but I doubt I can be much help in this very specialist area. DrKiernan (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile history is re-written? It is a very simple logic test. All Karaylar are Karaims and all Karaims are Karaites. But Not all Karaites are Karaims and not all Karaims are Karaylar. 62.255.75.224 (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

By putting yourself in the position of Adjudicator, you would lose integrity if you did not endeavour to move yourself out of the "layperson" category to at least well informed no? Is it really respectable to decide on a matter and close a discussion ruling in favour of the least knowledgeable person in the discussion and then move on claiming no responsibility? I think the very least you could do is re-open the matter and leave it for someone who at least cares enough to do a good investigation no?

Here is the key point despite the deception which you swallowed, the TRUE Google books results yielded are as follow

Crimean Karaites 13 pages of results (this is without removing any of the Wiki results which adds illegitimate weight to this title. Without wiki and llc it would only be 10 pages of results which is only marginally better than Karaylar)

Karaims 81 pages of results or removing wiki and llc weight would be 56 pages

Even Karaimi beats the Crimean Karaites 21 pages

But you mustn't take my word for it, indeed you should check out the links for yourself. Now objectively should you have believed the alleged "1300" result which you quoted in your adjudication? Or did you trust in good faith the word of someone who is proving to be a very skilled manipulator of honest admins? I very politely request based upon exposure of this very clear and unfair deception that has been played upon you that you re-open the move/rename discussion please, which even now (if you look at the most recent heading on that discussion page) you can see is still ongoing. 62.255.75.224 (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the state of the old discussion, I think it wiser for you to open a new discussion taking on the advice that I've given you and the advice I've given to Budo below. DrKiernan (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

And what can be done about the Admins who are abusing their positions by hiding the facts on this for example please notice the following edit [6] why is there a conscious edit to hide the truth on this topic on wikipedia? I am trying to catch the attention of an admin with some integrity. I hope it is you. Every time Toddy1 does a controversial edit no one is watching, how is it that so many admins have supported so far his Zionist POV pushing? Surely any Admins with a Zionist POV have a vested interest in such matters and should be excluded from making decisions which stack the deck. For example decisions which include blocking users who have made tremendous efforts to build encyclopaedic quality articles and reverting their efforts. Have a look at what happened to the Crimean Karaites article just before you stepped in. Is the new version really better then the old? Did User:Kaz really deserve to be blocked without a review date after such constructive contributions? Notice how it is the same Admin who executed all this on behalf of User:Toddy1 whose edit history shows mainly non-constructive conflict and POV pushing. Something seriously twisted is going on here. It's as if there is money involved. 62.255.75.224 (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Seb has reverted your edit because he knows you are evading a block. It is accepted that edits performed by editors evading a block may be reverted. I see nothing wrong with re-directing Karaylar to an article that explains the term. You have made things worse for yourself by spreading unrealistic claims of a zionist conspiracy, and now your IP has been blocked per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Evasion of blocks.

My advice is two-fold: (1) either try to get the block lifted by acknowledging fault, explaining why you wrong and that you won't do it again, or wait for the block to expire. (2) If the block is lifted, or when the block expires, comment concisely on content and not on other contributors; back up your comments on content by referring to English-language scholarly sources. DrKiernan (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

George II of Great Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hesse-Kassel

Muqi Fachang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Luohan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Crimean Karaites#Turkic Karaites - Edit request

I notice that you closed the ongoing discussion on the renaming/moving of the Crimean Karaites page. I think ruling in favour of the Ukrainian user who has a somewhat irrational opposition to dropping the "Crimean" label may have been a mistake. I think it would be very helpful if you re-joined the discussion at this point. Very sorry to trouble you over this. Budo (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I would be any help. However, I would suggest that you avoid commenting on users, and come up with clear arguments for the move that relate to the article title policy. Demonstrate what is the more common name, and/or provide scholarly English-language sources that define the term clearly. The proposal is unlikely to gain support unless it is presented with clarity and succinctness, is based on policy and is supported by sources. DrKiernan (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm back. Before I start, I would like to appologise for my legitimate comment on the agenda of a non-specific user which brought on your criticism to me.

Anyway, I have been taking quite an interest in this little article to get the bottom of things since it is very close to the Kerait branch of my own area of interest (Nestorian Christianity). I am afraid I have to suggest following a painstaking and therefore slow investigation of the matter that you closed discussion on the re-naming prematurely and without reference to any relevant facts.

May I also ask. Are you the admin who move-protected the article? If not, do you know who did? It would be helpful to inform that admin too.

Please take a look at the discussion which errupted on the name immediately after you prohibited the move to Karaims (which I see now realy is the correct term). I would also like to suggest that you take a look at some of the related articles which have been affected since the "constructed" block of perhaps the only user stupid enough to try and preserve a POV on the matter which turned out to be contrary to that of the majority of Wikipedia editors (despite being the mainstream published view of the minority in question).Budo (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Drmies protected the page. DrKiernan (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Charles, Prince of Wales (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Azure

Edward VIII abdication crisis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fort Belvedere

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Engraving Copyright Act 1734

I stumbled across the discussion on Talk:Engraving Copyright Act 1734. Most printed sources say that the Engravers' Copyright Act (not "Engraving Copyright Act") was passed in 1735. Before 1752, the year in England began on 25 March (not on 1 January). That’s why you regularly find publication dates with double years such as 1705/6 or 1723/24 for dates within the period 1 January through 24 March for years before 1752. It is a fact that on 5 February 1734/35, William Hogarth and fellow graphic artists George Lambert, Gerard Vandergucht, John Pine, Isaac Ware, George Virtue and Joseph Goupy signed a petition presented to the House of Commons in favor of the legislation. The first reading of the bill took place on 4 March 1734/35, the second on 2 April 1735, the third on 11 April 1735. Eventually, the bill was passed on 25 June 1735 (not 1734). See Ronald Paulson, Hogarth, volume 2 (1992), pp. 39-41. For more details, see David Hunter, "Copyright Protection for Engravings and Maps in Eighteenth-Century Britain", The Library: Transactions of the Bibliographical Society, volume 9, number 2 (1987), pp. 128-47. See also

• http://copy.law.cam.ac.uk/cam/tools/request/showRecord.php?id=record_uk_1735
• http://copy.law.cam.ac.uk/cam/commentary/uk_1798a/uk_1798a_com_107200712278.html
• http://www.armeconomist.com/lecture/wto/08trips/International_Copyright.pdf
• Karl Maria Michael de Leeuw, Jan Bergstra, The History of Information Security: A Comprehensive Handbook (2007), p. 96.

Therefore, the Wikipedia article should be entitled, "Engravers' Copyright Act 1735". Eighteenthcenturyart (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with my close. You may be interested in the arguments of USer:Richard75 at Talk:Safety of the Queen, etc. Act 1584#Page move. DrKiernan (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not happy with it. The Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793 (33 Geo. 3 c. 13) provided that Acts of Parliament would come into force on the date on which they received royal assent, unless they specified some other date, instead of the first day of the session in which they were passed. Previously, Acts of Parliament came into force on the first day of the session in which they were passed, because of the legal fiction that a session lasted one day. From our modern point of view, the first reading of the bill took place on 4 March 1735, and the Engravers’ Copyright Act was passed on 25 June 1735. Most sources agree with this date. Eighteenthcenturyart (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know. The close is based on common name. DrKiernan (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. See also Talk:Engraving Copyright Act 1734. Eighteenthcenturyart (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Seattle-Tacoma Airport RM

Please reconsider, and reverse the closing of the RM at Talk:Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The overwhelming evidence is that all airports are spelled with a hyphen. It is not the number of editors but the strength of the arguments that is important. In this case there are a small number of editors who have decided over at WP:MOS to make up rules for the rest of the encyclopedia even where they do not apply, and have been wrecking havoc as a result. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Move review for Seattle–Tacoma International Airport

An editor has asked for a Move review of Seattle–Tacoma International Airport. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Apteva (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:AlbTelecom.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:AlbTelecom.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page

How dare you?! I have a dynamic IP but I'll be darned if I allow you to try to tar and feather me because you don't like people editing on Anna Anderson. I am telling you now: Keep off my talk page.~©Djathinkimacowboy 10:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I have examined that page and you tossed it to me as an accusation--yet you failed to notice the original IP and that other username date from 2010. You're trying to set me up, linking my present username to that old activity simply because the dynamic IPs matched, or because you noticed my present IP somehow, and saw that it is close to the first 2 digits of the old IP you referenced. I repeat: stay off my talk page. You are not immune from being brought to account for such false, evil doings.~©Djathinkimacowboy 11:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You are obviously the same editor returned under a new account. No-one else would share an interest in Anna Anderson and Claddagh ring, and the IP ranges and editor behavior are identical. I don't make accusations lightly, and these are certainly not false or evil. If you are editing in the same subject areas, then the old and new accounts ought to be linked. You should not be using IPs to blank the sockpuppet tags on your old accounts: [7]. Or removing my posts from talk pages: [8]. It is not appropriate to edit other editors' comments: please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. DrKiernan (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Your claims are false. I am not the same editor you claim. Those 'blankings' as you call them have been done by someone else--I would not go to another editor's page, even if that editor were blocked, just to try to erase tags. Why would I? And where's the proof that you keep claiming?However, I admit I have erased sockpuppetry accusations in the past. When they were attempts, like yours, to frighten me from editing an article. I have no especial interest in Anna Anderson, not even close to what I once had. As for the rest, editors either follow one another or simply happen to share the same article interests. If you dug deeply, you'd see several of us back in '10 had similar IPs and there was even a complaint about it by User:Aggiebean. If you recall, she attempted to accuse me of sockpuppetry using the same statements you have just made above. In any case, you may be unaware that what you are doing is just not nice. I am protesting no further on this point. I conclude by reminding you that as an editor, I am free to edit as long as it is proper editing. So if you want me away from the Anna Anderson article, I will comply.~©Djathinkimacowboy 13:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and as for this removal, which you are now attempting to add to your false accusations, you know it is well within my rights as an editor. How can you sit there and attempt to accuse me of something because I deleted your false post from my own talk page!~©Djathinkimacowboy 13:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The Anna Anderson talk page is not your "own talk page". DrKiernan (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I never said it was. And I have done nothing there save the couple of edits I recently made which you immediately reverted. I do not violate my own 1RR rule. I'm done with you. And keep off my talk page, just a reminder.~©Djathinkimacowboy 13:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)