User talk:DrKiernan

IP range block

You just looked into this block for me. Could you let me know how you (or the other admins) determined this IP range to be "potentially hazardous"? I tried using the toolserver and other links but they didn't pull up anything in the logs.

I'm asking because I'm SSH tunneling into my private webserver which also hosts my webstore, and I had a few customers tell me they received malware alerts upon accessing my site. Perhaps my IP range is "tainted"?

Thanks. Kent Wang (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's blocked because the ip range is an open proxy. There's a policy [1] to block these as they are often used for abuse. DrKiernan (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Blade Runner on HBO

How am I supposed to source this fact? I have an old VHS tape from the late 1980s, with the film recorded from HBO. Can't exactly cite that in any meaningful way here. HBO's broadcast version was the International Cut for a very long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.18.115.2 (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can't find a reliable source it indicates that the fact (even if true) is trivial. If something is not of any notability, it is not relevant enough to feature in the article. DrKiernan (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's non-trivial on its face. The text as written implies that U.S. audiences were unable to see the International Cut until the early 1990s when the International Cut was made available on laserdisc and VHS. In fact, any of the millions of U.S. viewers who saw it on HBO were seeing the International Cut, well before the Criterion disc was released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.18.115.2 (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth II/archive2

Hey- I'm certainly happy to see this article at FAC, but I was wondering if you could tell me where you stand with the nomination. Do you feel the article is ready? Is there anything else you feel should be included that isn't yet? J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing else I plan to include, and in my opinion no obviously missing material that should be included. I am confident it meets criteria 1bcde, 2bc and 3. It would surprise me if anyone directly opposed on those criteria.

On criteria 1a, 2a and 4, there is room for editors to disagree on what is relevant and what is trivial. For example, while some consider the fact that she is Queen of Tuvalu trivial, others think that being a head of state is always notable, no matter how small the country. The article is likely to be as good as it is ever going to be in the Queen's lifetime. On the Queen's death, I expect the long list of realms in the first sentence will be removed as we would otherwise have to extend it to 32 countries (We can't say "Elizabeth II was the queen of 16 sovereign states..." because she will have been the queen of 32.) After her death, I expect the removal of "Supreme Governor" from the first paragraph will be possible, but it is not possible at present because other editors are strongly opposed to its removal. The "Finances" section is another part of the article that is highly likely to be ditched. For some, the inclusion of these things in the article is not optimal, but for others they are necessary. If editors oppose, I expect it to be on these criteria and for these reasons.

My reluctance to nominate the article is not because I think it fails the criteria but because I suspect that the changes demanded by reviewers, on the above points, will not be implementable, at least for the next 10–15 years. DrKiernan (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is to be expected that articles will change with time. Naturally, an article on a current head of state will look different to one on a recent head of state, and both will be different from an article on a[n] historical head of state. I ask because I would be prepared to support the article, but would not want to do so if you, as the primary author, was not happy with it. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, we (that's not the royal we) would be very grateful for your support. There are things I'd change if I had complete control, but they're just my personal preferences not failings. If the nomination goes well, I shall add my name as a nominator and take half the credit, but if it goes badly I shall leave my name off and let Rockhead take all the opprobrium! DrKiernan (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

We are not amused, DrKiernan. Ha, just kidding. In all seriousness, I'm rather hesitant when it comes to things like nominating, and I wouldn't have done so if I didn't think the article was (almost) ready! Feel free to take half the credit if you wish. Rockhead126 (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a change to the lead, that I would prefer. But, it's been rejected repeatedly by the majority of editors, so the nomination is good. PS: After Elizabeth II's demise, she would be 'retroactively' Queen of 16 not 32. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, don't spread the word that she'll still be queen of 16 in any format, or we'll never get rid of the list!! DrKiernan (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You say the nomination is good. Does that mean you support it?

I see, exactly like last time, that "queen regnant" is still unpopular with reviewers. DrKiernan (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Tin assessment

I know that this is old, but when I (without logging in) changed the rating for tin in August 2011 ([2]), I was actually referring to the rating of carbon (C) rather than C-class. (I should have been clearer, especially for a potentially confusing symbol like this.) I've changed it back to B+, anyway. Double sharp (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II Peer review

Hi DrKiernan, the Pope John Paul II article is currently on peer review, if you are interested in participating -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Prince Louis of Battenberg

This is a note to let the main editors of Prince Louis of Battenberg know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 9, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 9, 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:

Prince Louis of Battenberg (1854–1921) was a German prince related to the British Royal Family. After a career in the United Kingdom's Royal Navy lasting over forty years, in 1912 he was appointed First Sea Lord, the professional head of the British naval service. He took steps to ready the British fleet for combat as World War I began, but his background as a German prince forced his retirement at the start of the war when anti-German feeling was running high. Queen Victoria and her son King Edward VII, when Prince of Wales, occasionally intervened in his career—the Queen thought that there was "a belief that the Admiralty are afraid of promoting Officers who are Princes on account of the radical attacks of low papers and scurrilous ones". However, Louis welcomed battle assignments that provided opportunities for him to acquire the skills of war and to demonstrate to his superiors that he was serious about his naval career. Posts on royal yachts and tours arranged by the Queen and Edward actually impeded his progress, as his promotions were perceived as royal favours rather than deserved. He married a granddaughter of Queen Victoria, and was the father of Admiral of the Fleet Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, who also served as First Sea Lord from 1954 to 1959. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, consort of Queen Elizabeth II, is his grandson. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Azerbaijani people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persians (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) 10:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Miss Chiesely

Thanks for your attention to this and the link to Lord Kinneder. I chased down some further detail about his father. There is no suggestion of a family link but it's an odd co-incidence if there isn't. Ben MacDui 20:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I've actually been to the "house". I haven't read the article properly yet; looking forward to doing so. DrKiernan (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You are luckier than I in this respect - and I hope you enjoyed the tale. Ben MacDui

Sources

I am a bit shaken by the holes you have found in my sources for John Barbirolli, which I shall be addressing tomorrow. Can I bother you to look in at one (or even more) of my previous FAs and audit it? (Thomas Beecham, Adrian Boult, Piano music of Gabriel Fauré, Charles Villiers Stanford, William Walton or Henry Wood) Shall quite understand if not, but one wants to be sure one's FAs are unimpeachable. Tim riley (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It does take quite a lot of time and effort. What article were you thinking of nominating next? Maybe I could look at that one and post on the article's talk page, then at the nomination you could link back to the independent source review? DrKiernan (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Point absolutely taken. I am plotting to take Jacques Offenbach to FA in the nearish future, if you could find time to look in there. Tim riley (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

And by Gad you have, too! It's really marvellous stuff and I'm most grateful. Yours to command if I can ever do you a reciprocal service with an article. Tim riley (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel rather a fraud, as Offenbach is still stuck in pre-FAC discussions (entirely constructive, but slow!). I still hope to present your review as Exhibit A in due course, but I feel guilty nevertheless for imposing on you. Tim riley (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's fine, I assure you. DrKiernan (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited William Erskine, Lord Kinneder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopalian (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) 10:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

I believe I'm right in saying that all bar 4 the Warwick sources (62 of them)[3] and all the Heald sources (47 of them)[4] were added by me. You've added no sources whatever. You clearly do not know about the subject matter or check any reliable sources, otherwise you would not make obvious mistakes like claiming Princess Margaret was Princess Royal.[5] Don't preach to me when I've done more than any other contributor to improve the sourcing of the page, including you, by several orders of magnitude. DrKiernan (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The me me me attitude is not a wise path to choose, when other people have made contributions. The Princess Royal scenario was a mistake which I clearly got wrong, I was convinced that the youngest daughter of a sovereign had the courtesy of that title. Th attitude you have with the source isn't good. If you are good at adding sources, you could if assisted by adding one to the article after all you have added the most sources, I'm sure you'd like another ine added to your name. --Chip123456 19:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip123456 (talk • contribs)

I'm only too happy to acknowledge the useful contributions of others. It's the useless contributions of the ignorant that I'm not happy about. DrKiernan (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And things that annoy me are ignorant people who command and not assist.--Chip123456 (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You're the bully here. You're the one spreading threatening warning messages and trying to force your way against consensus. I'm not the only one reverting you. If you want assistance then ask for it politely instead of with a threat and a smarmy smirk. DrKiernan (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I never called you a bully so how dare you say that. All I have den is posted a warning message on her and corrected you on sow of your statements. You haven't t right to go round using an excuse to call people bullies, it's a strong word which has a limited need for. --Chip123456 (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I'll withdraw it. DrKiernan (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Chip12346 - you are on shaky ground here. You should be wary of throwing your weight around with your history of interacting with other editors. Calling DrKiernan "ignorant", for example, is bad form. From what I can see DrKiernan is being quite tolerant of your behaviour. --Bob Re-born (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was the first to use that, so his response is understandable in the circumstances.

Chip, I'm sorry if you're upset. Life is sometimes tough, but people will treat you as you treat them. If you treat me with respect, then I will naturally reciprocate, and I hope if I treat you with respect from now on, you will reciprocate in kind. DrKiernan (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

As you said respect is key and my responses would of been more cheery if your first response was calmer. Bob please note, we didn't need to bring up previous history as it does show a negative side, considering your previous comments haven't been to chirpy to me in the past either. Dr apology accepted and I will be taken down the warnings immediately. Kind Regards, --Chip123456 (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Chennai

Please check out my reply on the FAR of Chennai here. X.One ^SOS 13:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear DrKiernan,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sinking of the RMS Titanic FAC

Thanks very much for your comments on the Featured Article nomination of Sinking of the RMS Titanic. I've replied to the issues you raised - could you please take a look and indicate whether you might now wish to support the nomination? Prioryman (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

EIIR

Just letting you know I'm in the midst of putting something together at Talk:Elizabeth II. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I misread a paragraph here (p.10) and then somehow got the date wrong in the other two, mistaking 1959 for 1957. I'm not sure what I was thinking. Apolgies for the confusion.

The sources do apply to the later sentence in the article "Two years later, she revisited the United States as a representative of Canada", which is currently unreferenced. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's contentious, but I've added a couple of sources. DrKiernan (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Monograms"

Hi! We may have a serious problem here. What do you think? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: I'm no expert on the crown colors and designs, but the lettering (styles, type) definitely does not look authentic. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

DrKiernan, do I have to bring back the Admin-involved discussion we had from 2010, where you were told (and promised) not to remove monograms over their colour, unless you had a direct source that the colour is otherwise? All modern Danish monograms are blue, which is why the uploader chose that. An old book, much like a gold coin (remember that one?), is not a source to doubt the uploader's choice of blue for his files. The monograms are sourced, per the 2010 discussion, unless you have a really good reason to remove them (which so far you don't), they stay. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You broke the agreement first so don't come here preaching to me. The crowns do not match the sources; and Frederick VII does not match the source in any way, as expained in each edit summary. Unsourced material may be removed at any time. DrKiernan (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Each file is sourced, you were told not to removed sourced monograms, you were also told not to remove them based on colour, per the gold coin failure of an argument you tried to pull. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You clearly haven't looked at the source, because then you would see the differences. They are not colored. The crowns are not that shape. Frederick VII's is completely different in design. DrKiernan (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

And you've clearly forgotten everything that got you in trouble. Per the gold coin, that's not proof the monograms aren't and can't be in blue. Also, considering you went on Commons and fixed the crowns you didn't like, trying to say the crowns are bad now is rediculous. You have the ability to correct things that you disagree with. 23:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've never mentioned a gold coin or that they can't be in blue. It is the color and design of the crowns that is wrong in all cases. There are two cases where the shape of the letters does not match the source given. This is explained in the edit summaries.

I don't see why I have to correct your mistakes. You have graphic programs, so fix the files. I no longer have the program I used last time as it was on a computer that died. I don't see why I should go to the expense and bother of re-acquiring it. This is a volunteer project. I make the edits that I want to make, not the edits that someone demands of me. DrKiernan (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

They're not my mistakes, I didn't create the files, but the fact that you wont fix something that you see a problem with when you have the capability shows your laziness in the matter. And as you were told by several members of the community, the colour IS NOT an issue, it's mininal at best, unless you have proof that it's a certain colour. The same way a gold coin isn't proof that the monogram was always used in gold colour, an old book is not proof the monograms were always uses in grey. You know this, so stop with the "it's not that colour in it's source" bs. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see you final admit they are mistakes. The fact that you won't fix something when you have the capability, shows your laziness in the matter. As you were told by several members of the community, the color is an issue, unless you have proof that it isn't. DrKiernan (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't admit they're mistakes, I said they're not my mistakes (as in they can not be my mistakes) because I didn't make the files. You're still lazy if you wont fix it yourself when you know how, as you have done so in the past. And you were told that the colour is not an issue, you know you were told that, and you were told to stop removing them on such a trivial and created issue. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, you say you never mentioned a gold coin. Have you forgotten Mary, Queen of Scots, where you said File:Royal Monogram Of Mary Queen Of Scots.svg should be gold because of File:Mary of Scotland shilling 1553 692197.jpg?? I guess you also forgot how that was dismissed not only by myself but by others as a laughable argument against including the monogram. You say that this is a collaborative project, but you have no understanding of what that means. Ity doesn't mean, as you seem to think, that when you see a (correctable) problem, you unilaterally remove it. It mens that you either correct it yourself (when you have the ability), or ask others to correct it for you. Neither of which you are willing to do, which makes you the disruptive force. When the only issue you have with something is it's colour, and that can easily be changed, you do something about it. The fact you wont ask anybody if you don't want to yourself, is why I wont correct it for you. I'm not here to make you smile. Fry1989

^eh? 21:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No. I said the monogram of a Scots Queen should not be in the English colors. In fact, I pointed you in the direction of a contemporary embroided example which showed clearly that the monogram's colors were more likely to be blue. I never said it should be gold. DrKiernan (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, my question about the lettering is hardly even being addressed here. I wonder why? Did King John really use an 'H' as his monogram, though his official name actually was Johannes or Iohannes? I doubt that with all my heart and knowledge, but I'll be glad to admit it if I'm found wrong, whenever we do (?) get to see a source that shows us clearly what monogram (if any) he in fact did use. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You are both ignoring what I asked. I've now commented on that on Fry1989's talk page. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that was a question for Fry. I have no sources that say any of the three used a monogram in their lifetimes. That's one of the several reasons against their inclusion. DrKiernan (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I must say that this is pretty shocking. Some of the most highhanded and headstrong behavior I've seen on WP. SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!!

		The Royalty Barnstar
		For your work on bringing Elizabeth II to Featured Article status Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for doing the spot checks. I know that takes a lot of time and effort, and I thought a visit to the NLA on our behalf was above and beyond! DrKiernan (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

Hi,

Thanks for fixing the blurb in the Signpost! I even wrote you a note yesterday, but never posted it on your page, because I couldn't make sense of the first part of the lede of the article - but I couldn't even figure out what to ask. Must have spent at least a hour trying to figure it out, clicking on the links in the article, etc., which weren't much help at all. I'm glad you simplified it. Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, that indicates the start of the article is not very clear. That first sentence is the most contentious part of the article, and we've had a lot of difficulty coming up with something acceptable to everyone. Like everything designed by committee, it's turned into something less than optimal. DrKiernan (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Just for my own curiosity, could you explain to me what the lede of that article actually means - is the constitutional monarch of 16 sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms, head of the 54 member Commonwealth of Nations, ... On the death of her father in 1952, she became Head of the Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries: - The links don't help because the terminology is obscure to a non Brit. It seems like the most important fact is that she is Queen of England to most people in the world, but that's all rolled into "and, in her role as the British monarch, Supreme Governor of the Church of England." - makes the Queen of England stuff seem like the least of her roles. Is that true in reality and I just didn't know about all these other more important role?

• constitutional monarch of 16 sovereign states
• known as the Commonwealth realms
• head of the 54 member Commonwealth of Nations
• and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries - and a partridge in a pear tree!

Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

She is the Queen of the United Kingdom. In addition, she is Queen of 15 other independent nation-states. One might justifiably argue that her role as Queen of the UK is the most important office she holds, as the UK is the most populous of the 16, the only permanent UNSC member among them, the largest economy among them, etc., and she was born there, resides there and is the direct head of state there. The other 15 countries are not as important internationally; she doesn't reside in any of them and the functions of head of state in those 15 are carried out not by her personally (except on a very, very few occasions) but by a Governor General. However, the counter-argument is that the 16 countries are legally equal and placing 15 or fewer of them under an umbrella of "others" is bias against smaller countries or non-white countries or unfairly excludes very large and important countries like Canada and Australia. So, the talk page consensus (or at least the historically most stable version of the first paragraph) treats all 16 equally: either listing them all or embracing them all in an all-encompassing term. This all-encompassing term for the 16 countries (the UK and the others) is "Commonwealth realms". This is the term used by the official website; I wouldn't claim that it is a term in general everyday use.

Secondarily, she has a separate role as Head of the Commonwealth. Although historically this role derives from the British monarchy's position as leader of the British Empire, it is now a symbolic non-hereditary role as the figurehead of the Commonwealth of Nations. Whether there will even be another head, or if there is whether that will be Charles is open to question. All the countries in the Commonwealth would have to agree as decisions are made together not by majority (in essence every member has a veto), and so you only need one republic to say "no, we don't want the British monarch as head" to stymie it.

Thirdly, within her role as head of state there are other roles, like commander-in-chief or head of state in the various territories and dependencies (generally small, relatively isolated islands) scattered across the globe. Such roles are usually not mentioned in leads since virtually all heads of state have these roles. Obama, for example, is not only President of the United States, but he also commander-in-chief and head of state in Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Marianas, etc. Where Elizabeth differs from presidents and non-Protestant monarchs, however, is in her role as head of a national church. Personally, I do not think this is sufficiently important for the lead, since other Protestant monarchs (in Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, and historically in Sweden) are heads of their national churches. However, there is a counter-argument for inclusion, and since there is insufficient consensus to remove it, it stays. DrKiernan (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, although why is she queen regent of seven independent Commonwealth countries but Head of the Commonwealth. Does "Head" imply a more executive role? Is there a subtle distinction here? As commander-in-chief, are her powers to start a war, such as Bush did, similar to other commanders-in-chief? Are there areas in which the Queen is the chief executive, say as Obama is? Or is her role mostly ceremonial? What are her actual powers? Can she dismiss the Prime Minister on her own, or must others agree? It's too bad that article compromise resulted in all this arcane stuff being placed in the most important part of the article - the first several sentences in the lede. But perhaps the article is written for those in the 54 countries and the 16 countries and the seven countries - so it's important. Or maybe there should be a spin off article explaining all these complexities and what might arise in the future. Anyway, thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

She is "queen regnant" not "queen regent". A queen regent is a queen who reigns in the place of the Sovereign (the head of state); a queen regnant is the actual Sovereign. In other words, queen regnants inherit the throne in their own right whereas queen regents are usually the wives or mothers of men who inherit the throne. I've wanted to take "queen regnant" out ever since I can remember, but there is one particular editor (yes, I know you're watching GoodDay!) who insists it remain in.

She was originally the queen of 7 realms, but then 3 of these became republics, leaving 4 of the original ones. Meanwhile, as territories gained independence from Britain and Australia, another 25 realms were formed. 13 of these new realms have since become republics, leaving 4 of the original plus 12 of the new ones left as realms today. In total, she's been the queen of 32 different countries at one time or another. It even gets more complicated than that because some territories, like Sudan for example, went straight from territory to republic leaving out the realm bit, so she was in a sense head of state of Sudan for 4 years while it was still part of the British realm. Also, Pakistan has split up since she was the head of state and so she was also head of state over the area now known as Bangladesh (when it was part of Pakistan), but that isn't counted because the break-up happened after the country had become a republic. As this is all so complicated, it's been split off into other articles, including States headed by Elizabeth II.

The Head of the Commonwealth has no executive power whatever. She is merely a figurehead chosen for historical reasons as the Commonwealth evolved from the British Empire. The Commonwealth used to be an association of countries that once were in the British Empire, but it now includes countries that were never part of the Empire. It is an organisation similar to the United Nations or the Pacific Forum.

In my view, her role in the UK is entirely ceremonial. However, the government exercises power through what is called the royal prerogative. So, when the UK declared war on Iraq, there was no need to call a parliamentary vote, war was declared by the Queen on her prerogative. But in reality she made no decision: the decision was made by the Cabinet, and it is the Cabinet that makes all final decisions of government. War is declared in her name rather than by her personally. Similarly, the polite fiction that the Queen selects the prime minister is maintained in common speech but in reality the prime minister is determined by whichever party holds the majority in the House of Commons. If no party holds a majority, then the sitting prime minister remains in power until s/he resigns or loses a vote of confidence. It is only then that the monarch has any sort of freedom to select a new prime minister. This has only happened twice in the UK in the queen's reign. In 2010, the leader of the largest party was appointed prime minister after forming a coalition agreement with the third party and after Brown had resigned. So, the queen actually had no choice since the man she appointed actually already led a two-party coalition that held a majority in the House of Commons. For a few days though, while the coalition talks were happening, Brown remained prime minister because he had not resigned or lost a vote of confidence. In (February) 1974, the party in power lost the election by 4 seats, but no party had a majority, so the prime minister remained in power trying to do a deal with the third largest party. Just as in 2010, the third party instead did a deal with the largest party, and so the prime minister resigned and the leader of the largest party was appointed prime minister. The government was unstable because even with the support of the third party they didn't have a majority as the number of seats controlled by the largest and third parties was just less than the number controlled by the second party plus all the regional parties with just couple of MPs each. A new election was held a few months later, which gave the largest party a narrow majority. So, again the queen followed Parliament's lead rather than appoint a prime minister of her own choice. There's more about the role of the monarch at Monarchy of the United Kingdom. DrKiernan (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Well, I really appreciate your explanation, DrKiernan. (I had no idea of all that complexity of British government.) It's way more interesting than the article. But how did it pass featured article rules if the first few sentences of the lede are so (pardon me) awful and dull (and really aren't that important, and don't represent the article per the lede rules)? And was there a constituency that demanded that all those countries be listed in the lede? I hope the photograph I picked from the article is ok for the featured content section of the Signpost. I chose it because she seemed so warm and human in it, and actually pretty and shinning with a happy expression on her face. I've heard that she is way more attractive in person than we in the US know because all we see are those terrible photos where she is wearing those hats and usually looks stiff and formal and is frowning or something. Thanks so much, MathewTownsend (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We are not amused (but then neither were the marines).

They've been long arguments over the first paragraph: in fact, the move of the list of the countries from the first to the second paragraph was only done two days ago as the result of a discussion. Unfortunately, I really wouldn't be surprised if someone shifted it back. There are certainly editors who are very keen on the list, as well as editors who are keen to be rid of it. Similarly, I would like to see "queen regnant" and "supreme governor" removed as it is unnecessary to complicate the lead with such unfamiliar terms, but there are other editors who insist they be included.

She does smile more often than people give her credit for. DrKiernan (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: I have been presented to HM, and her smile lights up the room. It's such a pity that in repose her expression (like that of her Granny, Queen Mary) is rather severe. Forgive this irrelevant intrusion, but I was visiting this page on business (above) and couldn't forbear to put my oar in here. Tim riley (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Mary, Queen of Scots, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Perth (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) 10:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

How far to go in including succession boxes

• Following our discussion concerning the succession boxes on the Prince Louis of Battenberg article, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization on how far to go in including succession boxes. I would welcome your comments there. Greenshed (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Slowness

Further to previous, it does appear that 1.19 (or rather, mostly unrelated actions that somewhat coincided with the 1.19 deployment), have indeed put a strain on the servers, which might the cause of your slowness. The good news if that is the cause is that devs/sysadmins know about it and will be aiming to bring it back under control shortly if it doesn't resolve itself. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 15:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Dear Dr Kiernan, In re: Theophilus Cibber article edit: I agree, it was a much better idea to put what I had written about his birth record in the entire footnote (footnote no. 1). I should have thought of that earlier - the article looks much better like that! I couldn't find a way to contact you so am sending it via this page. All good wishes Octavian3 (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad you did, because it reminded to add a wikilink to the church. DrKiernan (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Gas, Mesopotamia

I notice you fixed this page move; thank you for doing that, it is appreciated. However, if this was as a result of seeing my query here, I was actually looking for an answer to the question. Can you advise me on that (Or were you just passing?)? Moonraker12 (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see the talk page question. The way I'd do it without tools is to tag the target page with a G6 speedy delete notice with an appropriate rationale and then once it is deleted, the source page can be moved there. DrKiernan (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, and for your comments on the RM page. I've made replied there, also. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012 - Elizabeth II

Hi, can you show me a Wikipedia policy which shows that we don't use royals styles. On the Prince of Wales' article, in a number of pictures it does this. But so I can make sure that it is official and so I can read through the policy, please direct me to it. --Chip123456 (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

MOS:HONORIFIC.

Thanks, and always remember to sign even the smallest of comments. --Chip123456 (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Mesopotamia, again

Hello again (sorry about this!)
I'm afraid there's a problem again, with the gas article and the Iraqi revolt article. I've tried fixing the pages but the editor who created the problem (User:Adel Tigris) is still pursuing his agenda. Would you mind looking at it? I've requested page and move protections (here) but the pages have already been moved around again. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)