User talk:DrKay

Talk:Burma

The exact same thing was going on during the previous vote but the page was moved. Any reason for the double standards?--   Avg    15:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it extremely shocking that a case like this is being handled in such a nonchalant manner. A comment like "The discussion is really just going 'round in circles, as it always does. There's no hope of consensus, and it's just a waste of everyone's time to continue it." has got to be one of the most unbecoming opinion to ever sprout from an admin. Are our admins now failing to believe in the concensus process?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The previous move proposal received more than twice as much support than opposition. Closure was correct, as was this. Please get over it. No use in continue the going 'round in circles here. Húsönd 01:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If one of the basic founding principles of this website is under siege, and treated with such nonchalance by an administrator, anyone who insists on "getting over it" may be deemed to be dismissing that said policy with equal contempt. I fail to see how a "previous move proposal" was supposed to factor into this, but if one were to follow Wikipedia:Naming conflict, the above move request will have an entirely different result independent of the previous proposal. This closure was thus not correct by any measure. Until the day WP:NPOV is upheld, many of us will not rest to pursue that ultimate goal. Mark my words.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Golfers

Nice work in getting rid of the project, it really has done nothing for around 2 years. You might want to delete {{User WikiProject Golfers}} as well. Then that'll be it. Thanks! Grovermj 23:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD

I've just added headings to hopefully separate some of the issues on the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:wikipedia-en-admins (3rd nomination) page - would you like to comment again? --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Parliament of the United Kingdom

Is being reviewed at WP:FAR Featured article review, please come and help bring this article up to current featured article standards. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

archive tags

[1]

At WP:AN and WP:ANI, sections are archived by a bot that only pays attention to headers, so any archive tags must be below the header to be archived with it (think of the tags as being like the ones at RFD and TFD rather than AFD and MFD). I've already fixed this, but just a friendly reminder for any time you do this in the future. —Random832 14:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Image talk deleted

Please, if you could do anything about this. Namely the talk page was deleted by mistake. If the talk page would be returned I will just collect the information from it - then you can delete it back. Please help. -- Imbris (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you saved mine work. I appreciate it greatly. Thanks once more. -- Imbris (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Another York time waster?

In this edit, new user WBushFedayeen uses the word "crimescene", as was Mr. York's habit. Interesting. --CliffC (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Princess Alice of Battenberg

Howdy! Reading through the article just now, I noticed that the page hasn't yet appeared on the Main Page. If you'd like to expedite the process, you might want to consider making a request for February 25, as articles with a significant tie to a particular date (in this case being the subject's birthday) are often put up in place of the random choice that would otherwise be made. If, on the other hand, you don't really mind when the article is displayed, feel free to ignore this message.  :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a belated thanks for your input on Wormshill which achieved FA while I was on a wikibreak. Cheers Dick G (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Mumia Abu-Jamal => FA

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I award you this Barnstar for your tireless efforts in bringing Mumia Abu-Jamal to Template:FA-inlineFeature ArticleTemplate:FA-inline status. Congratulations --Merbabu (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! DrKiernan (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I see I'm not the first to say so, but I would also like to commend you for your efforts on the Mumia article. It's such a difficult subject and I'm sure there will have to be a lot of monitoring and maintenance. It would not have made FA without your work. Thanks. -- Austin Murphy (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, good work -- I was quite (pleasantly) surprised to see that the Mumia article had made it to FA. That must have taken a lot of hard, calm, consensus-building. I saw it on the FA / WikiNews, and was reading it, and thus made my small syntax change, which you properly edited back. I've explained my reasoning & offered a proposed quote to replace it on the Talk page. Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Charles II of England

A list of fictional portrayals of an historic personage is in no way trivia. Please do not remove. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the appropriate section (particularly the sections headed "What this guideline is not" and "Not all embedded lists are trivia sections") and stop doing this. This is not a list of "miscellaneous facts". It is a focused list of information which is of interest to many people. There is a very big difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured article criteria: Articles must stay "focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". Red-linked lists of off-topic information breaks this criteria. If you want to add these details to the encyclopedia they should go into another article such as "Cultural depictions of British monarchs" or "Depictions of British monarchs in popular culture". DrKiernan (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So, based on one sentence which does not really support your opinion (and completely ignoring the guidelines I have cited) you think it is valid to delete the entire section, into which I have put a lot of work, without any real discussion? A little arrogant, wouldn't you say? And as a fellow admin I think you really should know better than to delete large chunks of valid work without discussing it first. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't deleted. You can just copy it from an old revision into a new article. You are the one ignoring my arguments not the other way around. I've already said you can include the material in a relevant place. DrKiernan (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Julian the Apostate

One more person was trying to support the move, but they were cut off. See User_talk:Thegreyanomaly#Julian_the_Apostate_article_renaming. Its not evenly split. The decision should be for the move. User:Mcorazao supports the move. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

James Burke (racing driver)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article James Burke (racing driver), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Great saves (from Marskell)

• WP:SIGNPOST and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-11/Dispatches. And thanks so much for doing the tedious work of notification :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

Just a note of congratulation on the promotion of Edward VII! It's good that both brother and sister were promoted on the same day :) Keep up the good work. Best, PeterSymonds | talk 08:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I second that -- great article! Coemgenus 14:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Runtime of Blade Runner

The runtime of Blade Runner in the infobox is different than Blade Runner#Versions section and Versions of Blade Runner. Which is correct? --Quest for Truth (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have Sammon at home. I'll double check the figures he gives tonight. DrKiernan (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And again

Back-to-back Signpost mentions: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-18/Dispatches. Marskell (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the fix of my last edit on Coenwulf. I was looking at one paragraph and editing another; not sure how I managed it but thanks for fixing it. Mike Christie (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Biography portal rotation suggestion

Please see here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request

Hi, thanks for your great reviews of Princesses Beatrice and Louise. Now their sister, Princess Helena of the United Kingdom, is up for peer review, (here) and I was wondering whether (when and if you're free) you could review it. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 18:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland

Thanks for the peer review, Dr. K. I'll make those changes and submit for FA. Coemgenus 15:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hey, Dr, do you have time to run through Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neilston? It's been at the bottom of the list for a while and I still see some fixin' needed. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

FAR notification

William IV of the United Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Chwech 00:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

punctuation inside of quotation marks

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/marks/quotation.htm Quotation Mark#Punctuation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ytcracker (talk • contribs) 00:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous South African biographies

Thanks for assisting in the review and editorial process of the miscellaneous South African historical politicians I put on! More work is coming. Michel Doortmont (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please have a look at Pieter Jeremias Blignaut as well; still stands as stub. Michel Doortmont (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Indian British

I created the the Indian British article, and I do not appreciate that you keep changing the articles name to British Indian, what reasoning at all do you have behind it. The term British Indian means Indian people of British descent. Even the UK's National Statistics used the term Asian or Asian British (including Indian British), all other Indian diasporas have the 'Indian' in the name first (Indian American, Indian Canadian etc). Renaming the article has made the meaning the complete opposite, and has helped to make ther small article even worse. I would be thankful if you could lift the 'move page block' as it needs renaming to its former self. I see absolutely no reason why you shouldn't, except the fact that another article is called British Asian, which is also wrong, but I do not yet want to get involved with such a complicated article, follow the link to the the correct term - Asian British, hence Indian British - in usage [2]. Thanks Stevvvv4444 (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The page is moved as agreed on the talk page. You need to follow the procedure at requested moves to change it. DrKiernan (talk) 06:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Che Guevara

I'm very pleased to see that you've withdrawn your remove vote for now for the FAR for Che Guevara. However, I would prefer that you leave your vote visible on the page and strike it out with <s></s> so that people can easily see the history of what has happened. If you give me permission, I will restore and strike out your vote; or you may prefer to do this yourself. Thanks. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography peer review

Hello DrKiernan. I recently submitted the article Richard Dawkins for peer review at Wikiproject Biography. I notice that you did not make suggestions based on the javascript programme which you use. Am I to take it that nothing was found when you ran the programme? Thanks. AC+79 3888 (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

DrKiernan, thank you for peer reviewing the article for me. Regards. AC+79 3888 (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mumia Abu-Jamal

How do you know, that google is carrying this video in violation of the creator's copyright? --Raphael1 23:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it says "Copyright Otmoor Productions 1996. All rights reserved." at the end of the film. DrKiernan (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

April 21

Hey, Doc, Monarchy of the United Kingdom is on the mainpage on April 21 for Queen Elizabeth's birthday; it's an old Emsworth FA that needs a lot of attention, in case you have time to do anything before it hits the mainpage. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta

Hi, you may be interested in the reopened discussion on the title of the Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And dont say a damn word to anyone else that was just deleting my stuff for fun right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julianna_Rose_Mauriello&action=history

Are you sure Wikipedia is for everyone? Sure doesn;t seem like it.

WTF do you guys want? It doesn't matter if this girl would go on the world news, pedophiles everywhere would still deny it.

I worked with this young lady for 4 days. I dont need to post crap, I was there.

Prove to me you are not gay? SHOW me something that is newsworthy. It doesnt matter if you tell me you arent gay or not. I dont believe it and since Wikipedia is verifiable and SO SELF RESEARCH, your word doesnt mean squat. It gotta be in the news!!!

Does that sound correct?

Why is it some admins say imdb.com is reliable and some say it isn't?

It just seems funny you guys are SOOOO FAST to jump on ANYONE wh you dnt agree with. Yet on wikipedias introduction page it says to be nice to new people that dont know how to work this damn site. But all you guys are interested in is seeing how much you can delete shit that people write.

You know, keyboard warriors are funny. I have no doubt all 3 of you are the same person. None whatsoever.