User talk:DrKay

Chennai FAR

Hi! The FAR for Chennai (review at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chennai/archive2) has been ongoing for a while, and could use some comments to help wrap it up. Would you mind revisiting your comments on the page, and perhaps entering an opinion as to whether the article should be kept or delisted? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Replied there. DrKiernan (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Arms of Diana, Princess of Wales

Hi DrKiernan! Can you wright about the symbolism of the coat of arms of Diana, Princess of Wales on her article? I don't know how much do you know about the coat of arms, but I think you can help me better than the other users. Keivan.f^Talk 17:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's anything to say on the symbolism. However, I believe that section is misleading because both the previous and the later arms appear to be shown in the "Previous versions" sub-section. Possible options are to remove the template and re-format the section to show a gallery beneath a text explanation, to try to get "Previous versions" in the template changed to "other versions", or swap the main arms with the later one. DrKiernan (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

OK! Thanks. Keivan.f^Talk 19:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I made some changes on her article, but about the symbolism, there must be something to say, Like Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall or Sophie, Countess of Wessex. I searched in google and I thought very much to wright something but my English is not very good. If you just wright two or three lines about the symbolism of her coat of arms, It will be enough. I know that you will find something to wright. Please, do it. Keivan.f^Talk 20:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we can write about the symbolism of Catherine's arms because it is a new design, created within the last few years. Similarly, Sophie's arms are a new grant, and Camilla's has new elements (the supporter) that are designed specifically for her. Similarly, we can write about William and Harry's arms because they are new, and incorporate elements from both their mother's and their father's family arms. It is relevant to explain where these elements came from. This is different to Diana's arms, which are inherited from a 16th-century ancestor. So, to my mind, saying she inherited the arms from her paternal ancestors or father should be sufficient. DrKiernan (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

OK! I did it. I wrote about where does her coat of arms come from and I think it's enough. Keivan.f^Talk 15:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

edit conflicts

Hi. Sorry that you feel put out but the feeling is mutual. These are edit conflicts at Argonautica and your edits have caused me to lose a lot of input. I am not reverting your edits on purpose. Maybe if you keep your punctuating work till I have finished giving you something to punctuate, we would both end up in front. Meanwhile sorry for the (unintended) inconvenience. McOoee (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I suspected as much. That's fine, I'll do as you suggest. DrKiernan (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ancestors of Sophie, Countess of Wessex

Hi DrKeirnan! Can you help me about the ancestors of Sophie, Countess of Wessex? I just found 14 of them many months ago, and I could not find more of them. She is a member of the royal family, so like the others we need the name of 30 ancestors of Sophie. How can I find the others? Do you know any source to show me the other ancestors of Sophie, Countess of Wessex? Keivan.f^Talk 13:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not. I think the section looks great as it is. DrKiernan (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

So, If you say it is great, OK. Thanks. Keivan.f^Talk 13:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

But, again I think we need more ancestors for her. All of the other British royals have thirty ancestors on their article. We need the name of 16 other ancestors of Sophie. I think you can search in google or find a source to help us. Keivan.f^Talk 14:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Te actual truth is as follows, apparently: Both Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones and their heirs were covertly executed by the American government for the murders of the Roosevelt family and on terrorism charges -- please see http://www.houseofwessex.org. Any heirs the United Kingdom is claiming to the Wessex title are actually replacements. 109.153.200.99 (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Did not realize that was a separate section, when I searched it never came up. Thank you for pointing me to it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Halvdan Koht

Greetings, Doctor. I was asked a little while ago to review this article for GA, but I suggested instead that I should copy-edit it and let another editor judge it at GAN. I have duly copy-edited (marvelling at how little I needed to change in the Norwegian author's English prose) and I wonder if you might be inclined to review the article for GA? Quite understand if you haven't got time or inclination, naturally. Tim riley (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not, sorry. There are two citation needed tags (one from nearly a year ago). They're bound to be mentioned by any reviewer. DrKiernan (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite understood. Tim riley (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. When you recently edited Princess Charlotte of Wales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carlton House (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, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Templatier

As a follow up to this edit it is probably best if you add the template to User talk:Templatier so that there is no future complaint that a block was made with no notification given on the talk page with notification on how to appeal a block. -- PBS (talk)

Queen Victoria and Prince Albert

DrKiernan_Your revision to Queen Victoria of 10:30, 28 April 2012: As it happens not so trivial as may seem to a casual glance. It is of some significance in connection with cultural and political history, both for scholarly use and the general reader, and information not readily accessible to those not otherwise aware of it. Would you please re-instate as you found it, or present the information in some better way. Qexigator (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Spaced mdash

Hey Doc, seeing as you helped with the conversion of {{ndash}} to {{spaced ndash}} I was wondering if you would be able help out with a similar situation now that {{mdash}} has been moved to {{spaced mdash}} (see Template talk:Spaced mdash#Requested move). No worries if you don't have time or inclination, though. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Queen Victoria edit

Thanks for correcting my mistaken edit. --Ef80 (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Bugle interview

Hey DrK. The Bugle is going to start a semi-regular series called the "Article writers' guide", and the fist subject is biographical articles. Would you mind adding your views to the questions here, and adding any questions you feel are necessary? Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the recent citations and tag you've put

Hello, I've removed the tag you've put through the bot and if Prince Niaz Ali Khan needs citations and all that then so does Prince Ahmed Shah Khan. It's not about proving all the time you know! Then the heir apparent of Marquess of Milford Haven Henry Mountbatten also does needs citation and in your language needs deletion. Isn't so?

P.s - Sir, you should literally stop tampering the articles! You definitely don't know much about the Pushtuns/Afghans than myself, their origin, their previous and current history and each and everything about them. (Spitfire202 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for flagging the article and for all the work you've done reverting the supporting nonsense in other articles. Quite apart from lack of confirmation, the grandfather and father of this supposed prince both died in 1879, over 100 years before he was said to have been born, and that was enough for me to speedy it as a blatant hoax. I have given Spitfire202 a final warning. I also went to file an SPI and found that you already had. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

HRH Princess Alice, Dowager Duchess of Gloucester

Hi, you seem to have a lot of knowledge on the British Royal Family, which makes me ask, how is (was) she Princess Alice, shouldn't it be Princess Henry. This may be a silly question, but I found it rather odd that she was styled like this. --Chip123456 (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Ordinarily, she would indeed be Princess Henry, but the Queen gave her special permission to use the style "Princess Alice". It's the only example so far that I know of. DrKiernan (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thought it was very odd as one has never seen this been given to a non-royal turned royal. I have been looking to find a reference to support that HRH The Duchess of Cambridge has the title Princess William but haven't found one. Is she Princess William or not? --Chip123456 (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Difficult to say as there is no statutory basis for these titles and styles. My understanding is that if he hadn't been given the peerage, then she would be styled "Princess William of Wales" (like Princess Michael of Kent), but as he was given a dukedom she is instead styled "The Duchess of Cambridge". So, her correct style is the latter. Alice is believed to have been given special treatment because when her husband died she would ordinarily take the style "The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester" (since her daughter-in-law became "The Duchess of Gloucester"), but she didn't want to be called the dowager, so another style was invented. DrKiernan (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the late RH, dowager is not a very nice sounding word! Sarah, Duchess of York, is she HG, or because she is divorced is she just this. What is her title, Mrs, Ms, Duchess? Is she an actual Duchess or just styled like this? Sorry to ask these questions, it's just they ave been bugging me!--Chip123456 (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, she's just "Sarah, Duchess of York", without any other honorific. These are the just the sort of questions that vexed the royal household at the time of the divorces, and as so often is the case with unwritten rules, the outcome is not always clear. DrKiernan (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

These titles can be complex in circumstances like these. I've trying to get my head round the whole peerage system as well! I'm unsure of whether if somebody was made Baron, Viscount, Earl, Duke etc what their first title is..... Is it their peerage level or Lord or Mr or whatever! --Chip123456 (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean, if someone has multiple titles, in the way that William was made Duke, Earl and Baron at once? Generally speaking only the highest title is used, in William's case, Duke of Cambridge but with the style HRH. Lord or Mr are not used for dukes or princes. DrKiernan (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I know about royal dukes and earls etc. What I'm thinking of is, if I were to become a Baron, would Baron be my title Lord or Mister?--Chip123456 (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think in ordinary speech you'd be "Lord Chip", with "Baron Chip" as the formal title. DrKiernan (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I though, peerage as official title, Lord/Lady when speaking, although if I were to be picky, I would be Lord 123456 because you always use the last name in formal speech! --Chip123456 (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Barakzai dynasty and related articles

I was thinking that, as Spitfire2020 was editing these articles to support his hoax, and as we can evidently not believe anything he says, the only safe course was to roll them back to the point before he began to edit them. However, I see you have been working hard on Barakzai dynasty - do you think you are able to get it to a reliable state without needing to roll it back? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't intend to do any further fact-checking, so if you want to rollback, that's fine with me. DrKiernan (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

walsingham, potential named refs

Since you used a few named refs, here are a few others you may or may not wish to add (for repeated refs, though with one exception there are always only 2 of each): Adams et al. (20 of these); Cooper, p. 179; Cooper, p. 310; Cooper, p. 42; Cooper, p. 46; Hutchinson, p. 246; Hutchinson, p. 253; Hutchinson, p. 254; Hutchinson, p. 26; Hutchinson, p. 28; Hutchinson, p. 31; Hutchinson, p. 347; Hutchinson, p. 48; Spielvogel, p. 409, Wilson, p. 39; Wilson, p. 241; – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I always prefer to bundle references personally, per Wikipedia:Bundling. DrKiernan (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sarah, Duchess of York

Hi, It says in the opening paragraph of the article that she is a member of the British Royal Family, and is backed up by a reference. Should she be added to the Royal Family template?--Chip123456 (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Historically, she's been excluded but I don't object to her inclusion personally. Maybe you should raise it at the template or project talk page? DrKiernan (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection either, with her daughters 5th and 6th in line to the throne...it's fair to say, The Duchess is quite an important lady. I would comment on the article talk page, but not many people comment on there. Should it be changed, and if anybody complains, then bring it up..or what? --Chip123456 (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone's already asked that she be included at Template talk:British Royal Family#Members are incomplete, so I think it's fine to make the edit and see if it's reverted. DrKiernan (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will but where? Under the Duke of York or the bottom?--Chip123456 (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I prefer at the bottom, as shown in the talk page example. We'd then have three sections for the core family, the Queen's cousins and the outcast. DrKiernan (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Chip123456 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I prefer the template that you directed me to, I think it covers more people in the family who are important ie Zara and Peter Phillips...your views?--Chip123456 (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Now that you've got me thinking about it, I've replied to that there. DrKiernan (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Definitely, Zara and Peter, almost everyone knows who they are, they even had gun salutes when they were born. So shall we or shall we not add? Sarah Chatto, I don't know either but people like Lord Frederick Windsor, with titles should be on there and Zara and Peter. --Chip123456 (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Sarah does have a title!--Chip123456 (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Elizabeth II

This is a note to let the main editors of Elizabeth II know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 5, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 5, 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:

Elizabeth II (born 1926) is the constitutional monarch of 16 sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms, and head of the 54-member Commonwealth of Nations. In her role as the monarch of the United Kingdom she is Supreme Governor of the Church of England. She is also head of state of the Crown Dependencies. Her father, George VI, acceded to the throne in 1936 on the abdication of his brother Edward VIII. She began to undertake public duties during the Second World War, in which she served in the Auxiliary Territorial Service. On the death of George VI in 1952, she became Head of the Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon. Her coronation service in 1953 was the first to be televised. In 1947 she married Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, with whom she has four children: Charles, Anne, Andrew, and Edward. Her reign of 72 years is the second-longest for a British monarch; only Queen Victoria has reigned longer. Elizabeth's Silver and Golden Jubilees were celebrated in 1977 and 2002; her Diamond Jubilee is being celebrated during 2012. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Duchess of York

Dear DrKiernan! If you go to the article of British Royal Family name of Sarah is in two section:Current members and Collaterals. Should I remove her name from the section of Collaterals? And as you know after divorce, Diana was accorded the same precedence she enjoyed whilst being married to The Prince of Wales, what do you think about Sarah? As the former wife of The Duke of York, should she be in the order of precedence in the United Kingdom? Keivan.f^Talk 05:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

In the law of England and Wales, it is thought, but not certain (as there is no case law to go on as far as I know) that the divorced wives of peers are not peeresses, and therefore loose the precedence and styles (such as Her Grace and so on) that they derive from their husbands. It is common practice for them to retain the style "Duchess of ..." until they re-marry. Consequently, as I understand it, Diana (with one caveat below) and Sarah are not peeresses and have no precedence derived through their husbands. They do of course retain any precedence derived from their father, or any higher personal precedence derived from honors or titles that they hold individually.

Scottish peerage law is different, however. Divorced peeresses of Scottish peers retain the titles, style and precedence of dowager peeresses. So, one can argue that Diana retained the precedence of the Dowager Duchess of Rothesay.

I should say that the most recent source I'm using for the above is 20 years old, and the rest is my interpretation. I don't believe there are any formal written rules. It is possible that legislation or case law has changed recently, or that I am wrong. Anyway, unless shown a source that says the contrary I would assume that Sarah holds no official precedence. Any precedence she is given is from good manners rather than being beholden to tradition. DrKiernan (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again! I think we should add the name of Sarah to the Templates of the British Royal Family in other languages, what do you think? Keivan.f^Talk 16:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the other wikis rules are, but I see no particular reason why not. DrKiernan (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Shark's teeth

"Trying to get anything changed in this article is like pulling teeth out of shark's mouth." This is a very nice way to put it. I am just grateful I am not the only one to notice that. What bugs me most is having to beg for reasonable arguments (or arguments whatsoever) and still get none. Surtsicna (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I've essentially given up on all those articles, but putting one of them on the main page re-awoke my interest. I was very disappointed to see a breach of 3RR yet again, but as it occurred on the day before the article went up on the main page, I did not think the interests of the encyclopedia were served by reporting the article's main editor for a breach of discipline. The battleground mentality is entrenched as shown by Astynax's recent posts. He and I both agree that "King Don / Emperor Dom " is fine for Spanish and Portuguese kings but unusual and strange for Italian ones, yet he persists in arguing despite the agreement because he can not see past the personal animosity. The reason I'd given up is because it doesn't matter what you say or do at those articles - you will still be misinterpreted, misrepresented, hated and vilified, because even attempts to find a middle ground or help are immediately attacked unless you are a part of the favored clique. DrKiernan (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

organizing sentences

• An example of what I mean by "organizing sentences" is here. So as the final senence of the first paragraph of the SOS section, you could (for example) write, "During his time as SOS, Walsingham ___, ___, ___ and ___" (or however many major accomplishments you think he had or major aspects of his work or whatever). Essentially, in this context organizing sentences preview the major points of the section... – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Honours of Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York

Dear DrKiernan! I think it is really bad that we haven't got the honours held by Diana and Sarah during their marriage! We should right them on their articles like the other royals, but I can't do that, and I'm here to say to you to do it, because you have many information about the royals. I could find one honour of Diana and I wrote it on her article but just you can complete the honours of Diana and Sarah. So please, please, do it as far as you can and help Wikipedia. Thank you. Keivan.f^Talk 08:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)