User talk:DrKay

What about raja Dev Prasad raikut & Shiv Prasad raikut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:e14:b3dd::cec8:130a (talk • contribs)

I have literally zero idea what you're asking about. DrKay (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Charles and Diana common ancestry

I wasn't disputing the statement Diana and Charles were distantly related, as they were both descended from the House of Tudor through Henry VII of England. However, it is conventional when looking at common ancestry to list the most recent common ancestor, not necessarily the most recent common ancestor that was a monarch. Diana Spencer is a daughter of a 7th cousin of Charles Mountbatten-Windsor, Prince of Wales via William Cavendish, Duke of Devonshire Reference http://roglo.eu/roglo?lang=en&em=R&ei=7206640&m=NG&fn=&sn=&n=&m=C&i=7206640&v1=0&v2=&em=R&ei=7206640&m=NG&select=7206635&bd=0&color=&et=A

The relationship to Henry VII is 5 generations more distant. Henry VII Tudor, King of England is an ancestor of the 16th generation of Charles Mountbatten-Windsor, Prince of Wales and is also an ancestor of the 16th generation of Diana Spencer. Pacomartin (talk)

List of honours of the British royal family by country

Hi, 'Dr'Kay. You are adamant that only changes that can be backed up by reliable sources should be included. Is original content treated in the same way? As far as I can see, no, it is not, because the material, to which you keep reverting, is itself unsourced - and inaccurate.

See User talk:92.8.75.76#April 2020. DrKay (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Prince Philip

Hi DrKay. Regarding this edit, I searched the archives for "Orthodox" and found nothing that would suggest that the category doesn't apply. The article states, "he had been baptised in the Greek Orthodox Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Geoffrey Fisher, wanted to 'regularise' Philip's position by officially receiving him into the Church of England, which he did in October 1947'". Can you link the specific archived discussion on this issue that applies? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Archive 7. DrKay (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Caroline era

Hi DrKay, Giano is driving a collab towards getting this page up to snuff; obviously your knowledge and command of the sources would be invaluable. I think you are prob best placed to give a steer on how the TOC should look; it seems like atm its veering towards too much emphasis on van Dyck and the US Colonies. I also worry that it may veer too much into a version of the Charles I bio if not steered correctly. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, keeping on subject will be the problem and it’s where I was struggling on my own. What you see now is the skeleton of what I inherited, it’s a huge subject, but I think it has to stay focused with Charles I being the hub, but not a bio of that King, more his times and whatever touched his times lands and realms. Probably best now, if we all comment on the article’s talk page. My aim, is that we have Wikipedia’s best writers showcasing what they can do. Giano (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

"Poor Sources"

If i used a source that is used on another Wikipedia page, would that still be "poorly sourced"?. I'm starting to think you have a vendetta against me... 2A02:C7F:1425:8B00:3076:E0B0:BE10:C797 (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Guidance is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

James VI and I

I saw that you reinserted the surname Stuart on the article James VI and I after I removed this. I did this because this is the guidelines of WP:Manual of Style/Biography#Royal surnames:

For visual clarity, articles on monarchs should generally begin with the form "{name} {ordinal if appropriate} (full name – but without surname; birth and death dates, if applicable)" Векочел (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Look at his parents and most of his children. They used surnames. The guideline explicitly says use the surname if it is known and in use. DrKay (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Added citations

Citations have been added on your previous deletion at Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram Wikieditor987 (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Two of your sources are probably acceptable. The rest are not. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research for guidance. DrKay (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

British Monarchs Featured Topic?

Hi! I know you work a lot with articles on various British Monarchs, so I thought you'd be the person to run this by. Surely "British Monarchs" could be a featured topic? It seems like all of the monarchs have featured articles, and if the List of British monarchs one was promoted, that would seemingly secure the cause. That being said... I'd love to work on the list but I'm not really sure what it would need? (if anything?) Maybe it would help if I added a paragraph or two to the lead about the British empire's collapse and moved the little blurb in the table about Queen Anne to the lead? Let me know what you think - Aza24 (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course, improvements are always welcome! I would not focus on the lead personally, because if there are paragraphs in the lead about the Enpire's collapse then there would have to be paragraphs about the Empire's rise, and I think that would imbalance the article. It's about British monarchs not the Empire. The blurb about Anne is partially repeated in the lead, but I think information about her is more rightly placed next to her entry. I can imagine what reviewers' comments will be: The coat of arms in the lead is not the same as the coats of arms of the earlier monarchs, and is therefore not a good choice of lead image. The 'name' column in the table shows 'name and reign'. The coronation footnotes are not sourced and the prose in them is repetitive. The citations in the Ref column do not actually contain the information in the row (the content isn't controversial, but the purpose of the footnotes not immediately obvious). The external links may not meet the standard required of featured lists. The main comment I suspect you'll get is that the list doesn't start at James VI and I. Doing so would also avoid the confusion at the start when it looks like Anne reigned for 7 years, when she actually reigned for 12. However, I suspect that there are editors who feel strongly that the list should start in 1707, and that might be a difficult comment to act on. DrKay (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Civility

DrKay, please follow WP:No personal attacks and WP:Civility. "self-evident crap", "deluded" "garbage", "even a mediocre scholar could find that out in seconds", "only delusional and ill-informed amateurs wouldn't even bother to do that" contravene those guidelines. You have been told multiple times to desist at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Generational suffixes - US / British English variants.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

If comments and articles are based in fact and supported by sources, they are unlikely to be labeled as garbage by others. Comments that ignore sources or that are based on prejudice are likely to attract criticism. DrKay (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

"Full name" of George VI and Elizabeth II

Hello, I think the main problem arising out of the chopping and changing of the full name parm is the loss of consistency between these two articles. I entirely agree with your last edit at Elizabeth because it restores mine this morning which was subsequently reverted. The trouble is that George is now out of synch by having the parm in place, albeit with the verification tag. My preference would be to remove the full name parm from all such regnal infoboxes. What do you think? No Great Shaker (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. I've already tried it at George but it was undone without comment[1]. DrKay (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll go ahead and remove it on consistency grounds. Take good care. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Titles and styles of Albert, Prince Consort

Forgive me if I'm not doing this right because I'm still new to Wikipedia. The article and the sources do justify my change to the article. Albert was born a prince of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld as his father was the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld until the realignment of the Saxon duchies, when the duchy and Albert's title became "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha". (Queen Victoria's mother, Albert's aunt, was herself born Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld as the daughter of the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld.) All royals of the Saxon duchies were Dukes/Duchesses [ie., Prince/ss] of Saxony, and their style was "Prince N of [Saxon duchy], Duke of Saxony". The source newspaper articles write this style backwards as "Duke of Saxony Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" because many 1840s newspapers were not exactly that specifically detailed. After his marriage, the "of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duke of Saxony" part of Albert's title was essentially dropped and he became HRH Prince Albert until being made Prince Consort in 1857. I'm not trying to argue or be rude but the article clearly states he was born the son of the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, and the London Gazette states that he was a Duke of Saxony, so I don't know why you keep changing my edit. Meliri (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I know the history; I wrote more of the article than any other contributor[2]. Editors have objected in the past: [3] because the sources do not explicitly support the material. The first item is unsourced. On the second item one source says "His Serene Highness Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" but the other gives an absurdly lengthy style that is not found in the article. On the third item, the absurd source from the second item is repeated, again it does not support the style shown in the article, and the other source says "The Prince Albert" without HRH in one place and "HRH Prince Albert" in another. On the fourth item, the style "His Royal Highness The Prince Consort" is not found anywhere. Of course, these objections are pedantic and we can imagine what the "real" styles and titles should be, but if sources don't show the title in this way, then it doesn't belong in the article. A summary article of this type should only discuss the main points of Albert's life and not get side-tracked down trivial by-ways that most biographies don't cover. DrKay (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I understand now. I just wish there was a way to format that section as I find it a bit confusing. But then if we did that it would require the specific styles... which we technically can't prove. Another time I guess. Meliri (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Overlinking

If you're talking about one of the links I made in Mary Jane Kelly, I'm not making an excessive link to a country when the link is to how the country existed in 1888, re: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. --SebastianDrawsStuff

No, I'm talking about linking common terms. DrKay (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Palpatine the Good

Pretty sure Palpatine the Good is yet another sock of Guilherme Styles. Guy (help!) 16:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I dont think so Palpatine the Good (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Cheers for the clean up, sorry to have been messy, I need to check my citing habits...Red Deathy (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Deceased portraits of the French presidents

Hello, I just want to tell something why you remove some images of the deceased French presidents. For example, most notable photographer Gisèle Freund, who was taken the portrait of François Mitterrand, but all images are copyright protected by the French government, and it is used for educational purposes. --TheMuscovian (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

We cannot use copyrighted images on wikipedia if a free-use image serving the same purpose is available. Hence, a copyrighted portrait photograph cannot be used if a free-use portrait is available. DrKay (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Synthwave.94 and Thriller (album)

Hi, they’re back and they’re up to their old tricks prior to getting blocked before. 82.132.232.201 (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Hello Sir. I am Gsrikar. Though I am on wikipedia since 2018, I have started making edits only recently (less than 2 months ago). I wish to apologise you regarding the errors regarding the copyrights of the images I have uploaded so far. In the case of 'Archie Mountbatten.webp', I selected any random option in the license list as it was not accepting and was deleting the file. I am sorry for this irresponsible behaviour. I also wish to take this opportunity to apologise for the conflict between us on the article 'Charles, Prince of Wales.' I do accept your edits and wish to propose truce on that topic. Please do forgive my mistakes so far and not block me from making edits. I do hereby guarentee you that no such copyright issues will arise in my further edits on Wikipedia. Thanking You, Yours faithfully, Gsrikar. Gsrikar (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Happy...

Wishing DrKay a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! CommanderWaterford (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

for pinging me about Apha9! Funnily enough, I do not even remember encountering him/her. Be well and stay safe. RedHotPear (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Revert edit of MoS: Tables

I apologize for selecting the incorrect explanation of my edit to the article. You were correct that it was not a "layout" correction; rather, it was a "Copy-edit and formatting revision". If you would be so kind as to explain what, if any, issues my edit created, I would be much obliged to discuss them. My only goal was to enhance the page for other editors in terms of readability and clarification. I did not remove or change any of the information presented within the article, only reformatted it for cohesiveness' sake. If my only mistake was to add the wrong edit statement, then I do apologize; however, I do not feel nor believe that would have warranted a revert of my edit. Thank you. AbeautyfulMess06 (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't use bold or italics in this way on wikipedia. Nor do we use double mdashes. Generally, I believe it is preferable to keep style guides simple and concise rather than expand them. I my view, it is unnecessary to include seeking consensus about major changes -- that applies to wikipedia as a whole not just tables. DrKay (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Spam

@DrKay: Hi! Just wanted to make it clear that the link you've removed wasn't spam. I just have left it out there by a mistake. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Synthwave.94

Hello, I went through the Thriller (album) talk page and saw you once blocked Synthwave.94 for vandalising the page, well, just to inform you that they’re up to their old tricks again. Tanittaking (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

They were not blocked for vandalism. The issue for which they were blocked has been resolved. I see nothing wrong with their recent edits, but you on the other hand look like another sock puppet of User:MariaJaydHicky. DrKay (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

George I's mistresses - "most important"

Hi DrKay

I can see that you have deleted some sections on the page of George I, and you have also deleted that The Duchess of Kendal was "the most important" of George I's mistresses. You say that it was "not found in source given", although that is quite incorrect. Maybe you didn't read it fully, and that is also fine, I would just like to say, that that is simply not correct. In George Edward Cokayne's 'The Complete Peerage' volume VII page 111, in the footnote section, you can read that "(...) She was the most important of the many mistresses of George I....".

Best Regards, and thanks for checking the sources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolaj62 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a massive problem with these early texts: they're all absurdly outdated. Hatton said all this talk of German mistresses was incorrect; he's only known to have had the one. DrKay (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I do agree with you; indeed there are many uncertainties when it comes to very early sources, however 'The Complete Peerage', which in this particular instance I'm referring to, is neither "absurdly outdated" nor an unreliable source. Whether George I's had one or a multiple range of mistresses (which quite many sources reaffirm) is not my point in this exact argument, I'm simply referring to an already established mistress, whom is noted as "the most important".--Nicolaj62 15:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous: it's 90 years old and clearly outdated. Everything written before Hatton's magnum opus is obsolete. DrKay (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I was being ridiculous, and I don't want to unnecessarily start a discussion, I'm simply expressing another point of view than yours. Two things, firstly, I actually agree with you, I'm simply saying that The Complete Peerage is a reliable source, one that is used in countless Wikipedia articles (should those article's sources too be "obsolete". And secondly, just because a source is 90 years old, doesn't mean that it suddenly becomes obsolete. Yes, every source should be taken with a grain of salt, but that doesn't mean that the sources cannot be used? I'm familiar with Hatton's work, and she too used old sources, even sources over 300 years old. --Nicolaj62 16:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, she's an historian. What do you think she's going to use: science fiction novels? DrKay (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I don't think we can come any further from here, when you're using that language :). And no, of course not! I'm simply saying that to describe and write about history you also need to use old sources (and in this case, a reliable one too), just as an historian would. Good Day!--Nicolaj62 16:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Austria doesn't have Archdukes anymore

I just don't get why editors want to apply abolished royal titles to people. Why? Such titles went with a position, as Queen Victoria and her daughter Victoria always called them, the positions were abolished and therefore so were the titles. Austria has an absolute right to say "we do not have Archdukes or royal/noble titles anymore ", to refuse to accept that is extremely disrespectful.Smeat75 (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit on Mary, Queen of Scots

You reverted my correction of a comma placement with the rather uninformative comment "Manual of Style". The phrase "even by modern standards (she attained an adult height of {{height|ft=5|in=11}},<ref>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1994|p=76}}</ref>)" is set off from the main sentence by an opening comma. That phrase needs a closing comma to signal that we're back to the main flow of the sentence. Conversely, I can't see a reason for there to be a comma before that reference—is that what your mention of the MoS was intended to allude to? Q·L·1968 ☿ 21:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Danish Princes

Regarding the Danish articles, most of them seem to have died young and articles wouldn't pass the notability guidelines. To be honest, I have no strong opinion either way, I just think that the Nav templates should be consistent. Sorry for bothering you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:A029:E03C:F712:2F4A (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Revert on Cleveland St

Am puzzled by your revert on the Cleveland St edit, as I thought my reasoning was clear. The cited sources *do not* support the claim that the scandal was referred to in Dorian Gray. "Sir Henry Ashton" could easily be a reference to Lord Henry Somerset (Lord Arthur's brother), who was forced into exile due to homosexual scandal several years prior to Cleveland St. Or it could refer to the string of other gentlemen who were forced to flee to the Continent over the years for homosexual affairs. To suggest the book makes an allusion to the Scandal is false. The Scottish book review of course does. It's a minor point, but should be corrected, as the falsehood has been replicated elsewhere. ClearBreeze (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Bristow writes on page 221 of his edition: "Sir Henry Ashton ... tarnished name: while the name of this lord is Wilde's invention, this figure may refer indirectly to Lord Arthur Somerset (1851–1926), who left England permanently on 18 October 1889 after his name had been linked to the activities of a homosexual brothel at 19 Cleveland Street in the West End of London." DrKay (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Bristow writes: "this figure may refer". In contrast, the text in the article makes a typical amateur's distortion by then restating Bristow's suggestion as fact: "Oscar Wilde alluded to the scandal". By rights the wording should at least state: "Oscar Wilde MAY HAVE alluded to the scandal". However, I think the claim in itself is highly dodgy. Including the mention of the book review is valid, but 'fleeing to the Continent' after being sprung for homosexual affairs had been standard practice for centuries before Cleveland Street. The suggestion Wilde was here making a direct allusion to Cleveland St, when, for example, the flight of Lord Henry Somerset in the 1880s had destroyed his marriage and political career and caused a social ruckus, is really pushing it. Which is closer to Sir Henry Ashton: Lord Arthur Somerset or Lord Henry Somerset? But I don't think it's relevant to either! So: (1) can we at least alter the wording to include "MAY HAVE", or preferably, remove the suggestion altogether? ClearBreeze (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a PS: the wording "Oscar Wilde was tried for gross indecency as the result of his affair with Lord Alfred Douglas" is technically incorrect as well, so you may wish to fix that. ClearBreeze (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

"This attitude reached its climax a few years later when Oscar Wilde was tried for gross indecency as the result of after his affair with Lord Alfred Douglas."? DrKay (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Antônio de Orléans e Bragança

The article Antônio de Orléans e Bragança has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Brazil has been a republic since 1889 so membership of the former Brazilian royal house does not necessarily confer notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

History of English succession

Hi,

Please see talk on the article History of the English line of succession.

Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Was there a change in name of the Elizabeth I wikipedia article?

Hello, this might be an unusual question but I have an inquiry regarding the Wikipedia article of Elizabeth I. I saw that you have recently been editing this article and I was wondering whether you could help me out. For a research project, I'm looking into viewing data of certain articles in the past couple of months, and I was wondering whether it is possible that not so long ago, the name of the Wikipedia page of Elizabeth I was changed from "Elizabeth I of England" to "Elizabeth I", and if that is the case, whether you know when that change occured. I'm not sure whether you have the answer to this but thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monarch-1999 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Monarch-1999: Yes, it was moved on 2 June (UTC): [4]. DrKay (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hyderabad Media

DrKay hi do you have any primary and secondary data related to Urdu News paper Name? please read 229 reference no if you want the real name? and The Siaysta Daily and The Munsif Daily is English website name not a Urdu news paper name which is register by RNI and DAVP govt of india — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susheelgiri (talk • contribs) 07:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Try reading my edit summary. Perhaps you'd like to demonstrate how Pargana, which is the article you linked to, is a Hyderabadi newspaper? DrKay (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

guide for c/e of Siege of Trichinopoly (1743)

May you once again guide me for grammar correction, at my DYK nomination of Siege of Trichinopoly (1743). :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Baron Ferrers of Chartley

I agree with your observation re numerals, this is going to need systemmatic correction. Your hasty edit gave us two 2nd barons. Thanks for your sharp eyes. Do you want to do it or shall I? RegardsLobsterthermidor (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Your recent editing history at Akihito shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
One more revert and its officially a violation. Calton | Talk 06:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

per WP:3RR exemption 3 "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users.", this counts as a third revert not a fourth as the first revert is exempt

You made four reverts, guy, period/full stop. You can undo that fourth revert or you can try out your Wiki-lawyering skills at the 3RR noticeboard -- which would be hard to justify considering you made the identical type of reverts at a related article that had NOTHING to do with sockpuppets so claiming "sockpuppetry" as your rationale is going to look obviously ginned up.

So back out or try out this excuse at the 3RR noticeboard: which is it? --Calton | Talk 07:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

So be it. Calton | Talk 08:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

George IV

I will make a note on the talk page as I think it is reasonable to include Anna Hodges as a possible mistress. The reference I used is a word for word transcript of the court case published in the same year as it happened. Hodges was certainly significant enough to earn a place on the wall next to Mrs Fitz in this cartoon of 1791, and is referred to on the British Museum site as "said to have been a mistress of the Prince of Wales".DrThneed (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

"not moved" vs "no consensus"

Hey! With George III and George IV, the pages weren't moved from there formal titles because there was no consensus, not that there was a consensus not to move. Isn't it more important and neutral to say they weren't moved because of no consensus rather than just "not moved", which improperly suggests there was a consensus against moving (since that's also what's said when there is a consensus against moving)? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: I didn't close those discussions and they happened over 5 years ago. We can't retrospectively alter the close at this point, and it was too long ago for a move review. Besides, the pages have moved since and so whether the close 5 years ago was correct or not is of little practical relevance. DrKay (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely. I don't disagree with the findings or anything, I just find it a bit off to be saying it was "not moved" (which is what we say when there's a consensus not to move) instead of "no consensus" since there was just plainly no consensus for or against. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Your recent edit

Would you like to remove it from other sultans as well? I added because it was present on others. Beshogur (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Official title of Queen Adelaide

Hey... The reason why I mentioned the simpler title is because in the plaque shown in the Queen Dowager section of the article, her title is stated as Her Majesty Queen Adelaide. In an official capacity however, as per records, she was always titled only as Her Majesty The Queen Dowager.[5][6][7][8][9] So, isn't her official title the one which should be mentioned in the article? TheRedDomitor (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how the London Gazettes in which she's called "Her Majesty Queen Adelaide"[10][11][12][13] are any less 'official' than the other ones. DrKay (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, my earlier comment was a genuine question. Now that die has been cast however, I do have an answer to why the references given by you are indeed less official. It isn't a question of where the title has been published but by whom it has been published by. In all the examples that I have given above, the announcements are from either The Lord Chamberlain's office at Buckingham palace or Marlborough house (her official residence) and she is referred to as Queen Dowager only. The examples that you have stated are either from Whitehall or from various politicians, like the Lord Mayor of Liverpool or MP's at the House of Lords, offering condolances to Queen Victoria on her aunt's death. In a situation where one queen is being referred to the other, with only the difference of Dowager between their titles, it can get confusing as to which queen is being referred to, and so Queen Adelaide has been used to avoid confusion. Also, statements from politicians aren't representative of the titles that are used in an official capacity. The biggest example is when in his funeral speech for the late Princess of Wales, PM Tony Blair referred to her as Princess Diana.[14] Though this is the most widely used title to refer to the princess, it wasn't her official title. Press releases by Kensington and Buckingham palace clearly refer to her as Diana, Princess of Wales. The last example stated by you[15], in which the Mayor of Alderman refers to her as Queen Adelaide is dated 1834 (when her husband was alive). So by the same logic, her title as Queen consort should also be changed to Her Majesty Queen Adelaide from Her Majesty The Queen. In the cases of Queen Alexandra and Mary, during their widowhood, they were referred to as Queen ( Christian name) by both the royal offices and by public[16]. These are just a few of the many examples which show that the titles as stated by people outside the royal family have a personal preference linked to them. Thus, the real titles are best represented by official correspondence from the royal households, which in this case is Queen Dowager, not Queen Adelaide. TheRedDomitor (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research: all claims must be supported by sources explicitly. None of the sources you've provided says "this is the official style" and there are sources that style her as "Her Majesty Queen Adelaide". DrKay (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Copy of the court circular from St James's palace, dated 1837: "the words Adelaide, the Queen Dowager be substituted for Our Gracious Queen Adelaide.[17] The court circular is the official record of royal titles since the times of George III, created specifically to tackle the inaccurate reports by media.[18] Also her full title as read out at her funeral: "the late Most Excellent Princess Adelaide The Queen Dowager".[19] Her Majesty Queen Adelaide is not wrong, it just isn't her official title. The same way in which the Duke of Cambridge is still Prince William, but now his official title as stated in court circular is HRH The Duke of Cambridge. Anyways, this will be my last message on your talk page. I may not have a high edit count but I understand the content policies on Wikipedia fairly well and it is exactly why I chose to discuss the matter rather than engaging in an edit war. I know that verifiability is important but I would like to believe that plain logic triumphs all. If official press releases from the offices at Buckingham Palace and Marlborough house are being held in the same regards as transcripts of speeches from various officials then I don't even know what to say anymore. It may not be recorded anywhere officially that I am aware of, but it is a matter of fact that the trend of ommiting the title of dowager in Europe started in the second half of the 19th century and was catalised by Queen Alexandra in the UK, who chose to not go by Queen Mother or Queen Dowager and then her daughters-in-law followed. Up until then former queens consorts were either Queen Dowager or Queen Mother. The edits I performed were in good faith, to provide accurate information against the notion that Wikipedia is generally unreliable. Otherwise personally it makes no difference to me which title is listed in the article. Goodbye and Goodluck. TheRedDomitor (talk) 06:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The claim that "Whitehall" and "speeches from various officials"[my emphasis] are unofficial is not just ignorant, it's self-evidently illogical. DrKay (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

"Minor edit"

Dear Dr K , mea culpa.....unfortunately most of my edits tend to be minor in nature and I must have pressed the wrong button on this instance. I notice the following on the top of the page ; "This page has been protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. " Could you please explain what autoconfirmed users are? Stay safe! Ériugena (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

As part of anti-vandalism measures, some pages are protected against IP edits or edits from very new users. User accounts that have more than 10 edits in main space and are at least 4 days old, such as yours, are 'autoconfirmed' and able to edit such pages. See Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed users for more details. DrKay (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

And yet your next three edits, none of them minor, were all marked as such: [20], [21], [22]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Jeremy N. Abreu

Hi! Thanks for trying to reach Jeremy N. Abreu. I've been trying to get him to clean up his act (or, at least, talk) for a while now, as you have. <sigh> Maybe some day... Cheers! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 14:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz / Claims of African ancestry

Hi, just wanted to drop you a note after making some significant edits to the "Claims of African ancestry" section. I made some additions a few months ago, but I think it's better to have a concise description of this than to have the more complete description I added. I also tried to reframe it as more of a description of the history of these claims, rather than a pro/con-style argument.

I've done a significant research project on this over the last several months, the outcome of which can be found here: https://correctingthenarrative.org/posts/queen-charlotte/

After all of this research in finding and evaluating the sources of these claims, I believe them to by a myth and not supported by an of the proposed evidence. However, it's unclear to me with respect to Wikipedia standards for style and citations how to appropriately handle unsupported claims by external sources, and I tried to balance that the best I could.

user:Havsjö disruptive editing AGAIN

he just blanked a good article without explanation, see what he did to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&action=history, please help here, thanks Gooduserdude (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The first step in dispute resolution is usually to begin a discussion of the issue (whether the article should have an infobox) on the article's talk page, or approach the editor concerned. DrKay (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

what discussion? he blanked the page WITHOUT rationale, that is per defenition blanking and vandalism and there is nothing to discuss Gooduserdude (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

i take back my comments, user:DrKay i think there has been a big confusing misunderstanding, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#user:Havsj%C3%B6 for an apology and explanation Gooduserdude (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Gooduserdude (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, DrKay. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 07:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:John Edwards (Labour politician)

Hi. I'm really not sure where you saw the consensus to move John Tilley (English politician) to John Tilley (Labour politician) or Joseph Harper (English politician) to Joseph Harper (Labour politician), which weren't even suggested by anyone. Would you mind explaining? Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I wrote an explanation but it was lost in an edit conflict with the bot. There was opposition to both British and English but there was no opposition to Labour: 'our third choice is always "[Party] politician".' DrKay (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but absolutely nobody supported that option! Our third option is indeed party, but only if neither British or English are appropriate as disambiguators. Since both are viable disambiguators, there was absolutely no reason to move them to these titles. Better to leave them as they were. Our first option is always nationality. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Ireland

• Living in Ireland

Official information for UK nationals moving to and living in Ireland, including guidance on residency, healthcare and driving. (Reference:https://www.gov.uk/guidance/living-in-ireland#working-in-ireland )

• Ireland

"Ireland is a member country of the EU since January 1, 1973 with its geographic size of 69,797 km², and population number 4,628,949, as per 2015. The Irish comprise 0.9% of the total EU population. Its capital is Dublin and the official languages in Ireland are Irish and English. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is €214.623 billion, as per 2015. Ireland’s currency is Euro (€) since it became a member of the Eurozone on January 1, 1999. The political system is a parliamentary republic. Ireland holds 11 seats in the European Parliament and held the revolving presidency of the Council of the EU 7 times between 1975 and 2013. Ireland is not a member country of the Schengen Area." (Reference: https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/eu-countries/)

• The name of the State is Ireland (or Éire in the Irish language), not the 'Republic of Ireland' (or 'Poblacht na hÉireann' in the Irish language). This became law in Ireland under the The Republic of Ireland Act 1948, which declared that Ireland may be officially described as the Republic of Ireland or Poblacht na hÉireann. (Reference: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1948/act/22/enacted/en/html) Therefore I would appreciate it if you would use your good offices to correct the erroneous name of the state as Republic to Ireland to the correct name which is Ireland or Éire ( The State has a form of government which is known as 'a Republic', which differs from its previous form of government which was 'a monarchy' Ériugena (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It already says in the infobox and the first line of the article: Article 4 of the Constitution of Ireland declares that the name of the state is Ireland; Section 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 declares that Republic of Ireland is "the description of the State". There is no error to correct. DrKay (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you might explain why you consider that the official title of the State 'Ireland' should be disregarded and instead the official 'description' should be used in its place? Why is this not the case with international organizations such as the European Union, the United Nations etc?Ériugena (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that, as I've made clear repeatedly. DrKay (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

References

ITN recognition for 2020 New Caledonian independence referendum

On 6 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2020 New Caledonian independence referendum, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 00:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguating footballers

Hey! I assume you have noticed I'm on a mission to "fix" the pages for various footballers, and it seems like we are having some disagreements. I tend to request they be disambiguated by birth year, and you by nationality. I am going to be honest, I have no preference between either - in the past it has made moving easier, since there are other editors who prefer birth year over nationality and it generally has made my life easier. However, to me either one is better than disambiguating using obscure last names or middle names that aren't use professionally, as per WP:COMMONNAME. So I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. Not sure if you have any suggestions, or if we should look into the disambiguating question more broadly, just hoping to make my life a little easier as there are tons of players with pages that will have to be moved.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

William Burges

Thanks for sorting those ref. errors on Billy. Updating the references from Crook’s 1981 magnum opus to the 2013 revised edition has long been on my to-do list. But it’s a big job! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

Can you take a look at the recent edits at Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Besides the fact the refs aren't in templates it seems to be just magazine junk.--Moxy 🍁 01:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Sock puppet.

I believer User:Junperson is a sock puppet of User:Chronus. He has been undoing all my edits acusing me of sock puppetry and vandalism in Brazil's article. Yet he keeps adding non-reliable content, very clearly politicaly biased for the righ-wing and messing with the article's sections formats. I have had issues with him on Portuguese Wikipedia. I checked his contributions here, he ahs been editing the exact same articles Chronus used to edit. Furthermore he has also accused other editors of vandalism and sock puppetry for simply editing. The discussions are available on his talk page. The Article Fixer (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Nelson's Pillar

Pardon me, I misunderstood your edit concerning James Joyce. I thought you merely removed the citation needed tag. I didn't notice you had removed the mention of James Joyce altogether. — O'Dea (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I know, unfortunately my original edit summary was misleading. Sorry for the misunderstanding. No harm done. DrKay (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Please...

Can you see this again? Thanks! Chronus (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

List of royal guests at the coronation of Elizabeth II

I closed this AfD as "keep" simply because nobody agreed with you. However, now actually looking at the article I don't think it's very good and it would have been far more helpful if those advocating for keeping it had improved the article and added some sources en route. Unfortunately there is no policy to delete articles just because they look rubbish. Harrumph. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

S.D. Richards

Hello Dr. Kay, For a while now I have been working on an article on 19th-century serial killer Stephen Dee Richards, and have been getting it towards FA status. I have been trying to find someone to help me out with copy edits and whatnot to really make sure that it will pass once it is nominated, and seeing your previous efforts I was wondering if you would want to collaborate with me on this?--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Parsing

What exactly is "template load"? I thought we preferred simple[r] abbreviations—if not actual words whenever possible—to all those ampersands and semicolons. (Not to mention carats and and such.) --Bofuses (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It's linked from the page you've given above: "Examples of limitations introduced to avoid performance issues are the limitations on template inclusion". Large numbers of template inclusions can limit performance. DrKay (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Diana

Goddamnit, and I thought I was being SO CAREFUL with that find + replace. Popcornfud (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Request

Greetings dear...you have a very good understanding of Wiki policies and have also voted at Afd's for many Royalty related articles. I would appreciate if you could provide your opinion on this discussion. Best regards 185.205.141.123 (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

RE: I don't think that.

The what do you think? Please explain why you insist on using the official 'description' of the state 'Republic' instead of the official name of the State 'Ireland'? Why do you suppose that international organizations such as the European Union, the United Nations etc use Ireland not the Republic of Ireland? Ériugena (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

My last contribution to discussion of this topic appears to have been at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 34#Suggested move "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland". DrKay (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

ANI and block?

Hi, I admire your patience. Thank you, you correctly rightly and patiently reverted this latest bit of misbehaviour, but did you warn or report for blocking? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Hi. I think a block you placed at User talk:SebastianDrawsStuff back on 31 May is possibly being evaded. Based on edits and editing style, I suspect that the user is continuing to edit here as an IP, namely User 2601:5C6:8080:C080:BC3C:2CC1:21EB:2AAB. Thanks. JabberJaw (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Portal-inline/doc ‎

Whats the problem here?--Moxy 🍁 08:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

my bad i see.--Moxy 🍁 08:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Length of reign

What's wrong with adding length of reign in infoboxes? I thought it was a good idea (an innovative idea rather) so if someone wants to know how long a particularly monarch reigned they can quickly know without trying to calculate? That's what encyclopedia is there for, to make information easily accessible and dispersible. You just reverted all of them. Reverts should be exercised with caution and reserved for instances where information is not factual. You should give it another thought. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Per the guideline infoboxes are there to summarise information from the article, not provide new information. They should be simple and succinct. The exact length of a reign to the day is trivial and not something generally given in reliable sources. Wikipedia should aim to mirror and copy professional encyclopedias, which do not provide this sort of information on each monarch's biography. If readers wish to know the exact length, they can look it up at the appropriate article, e.g. List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire. DrKay (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of guidelines for short descriptions

There’s a new proposal to add dating recommendations to the guidelines for short descriptions. Short descriptions are a prominent part of the mobile user experience, but the discussion so far has had relatively few voices. Since you are a top contributor to one or more Manual of Style pages, I thought you might be interested. Cheers —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 01:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Margaret

Hi. Don't you think the section about Margaret's romance with Peter Townsend needs to be broken down into three or more subsections? It's about 10-15 paragraphs and really hard to follow. Since you are more familiar with the topic, I thought you might be able to come up with some suitable titles. I was thinking about "early relationship" and then "crisis", but I'm not sure if they are 100% appropriate. Keivan.f^Talk 19:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Edward 7th and anti-monarchy movement in England

I believe you might find some tidbits at https://www.republic.org.uk concerning all the waste of time and money over Eddie and his mistress/admiration of Hitler to be an argument for their cause. I think a reference to this in some fashion might improve Ed's article - you seem to be the main editor for said article? 50.111.1.232 (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)