User talk:DrKay

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Added citations

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Palpatine the Good

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Precious anniversary

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Happy...

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

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.