User talk:DrKay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Regents[edit]

If we are to include George IV as Regent in the infobox for George III of the United Kingdom, it makes zero sense to exclude George II and Queen Caroline in the infoboxes for George I of Great Britain and George II of Great Britain respectively. Your edit summary, "there are various periods of every reign where counsellors of state or similar have held power", is not actually true. Literally no monarch since George III has had a Regent, and according to List of regents#Kingdom of England only a dozen monarchs have had a Regent in English history. 78.19.65.80 (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Counsellors of State exercise the duties of the monarch during foreign trips and periods of incapacity, such as Elizabeth II's tours and George VI's operations. Elizabeth II has of course had dozens and dozens of people exercising her duties in her place, across her realms. DrKay (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
So why not remove George IV as Regent from George III's infobox? Why the inconsistency? Also, I would note that George II and Queen Caroline had both been formally designated Regent, the latter specifically via an Act of Parliament. 78.19.65.80 (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I would be happy with the removal of both that parameter and the lists of prime ministers. DrKay (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd be okay with that, although I'm not sure the parameter should be removed for Edward VI of England, who was only a child during his reign. I'm not able to edit George III so I can't remove the parameter. 78.19.65.80 (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello. About Pedro I of Brazil. The surname is Bragança and not Braganza. If you decide to use Braganza, that is a translation to Spanish (why?!) You must translate the name of the father to Juan, etc. Regards, Luis Kantek (Brazilian History Degree) tks Luis Kantek (talk) 08:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's the common name in English. We tend to use English names on the English Wikipedia. DrKay (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Countess Wessex[edit]

Good day, please inform me why you have deleted entry under titles which had been cited? Tjabulile (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

As I explained in the edit summary, the material wasn't in the citations. DrKay (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe it's very true that CofW takes the titles of her husband. Which was cited but you removed them. Tjabulile (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Your belief isn't good enough. There must be a citation for every statement that explicitly supports that statement, see Wikipedia:No original research. DrKay (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I had citation that's my point because they are not GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU, you detail instead of engaging & finding proof that I'm wrong. Tjabulile (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The material you claimed was in the citations, wasn't. The onus is on the adding editor to provide a citation. Users removing uncited content do not need to prove it is incorrect, they can just remove it. DrKay (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

ok...remove due to lack of knowledge. I get you. Tjabulile (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No, you don't. The removal is due to the lack of a citation. DrKay (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Why did you remove entry with citation? Tjabulile (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:SPS. DrKay (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The content is what is cited i.e pic of HRH’s stall-plate inside the Queen’s Chapel of the Savoy, the chapel of The Royal Victorian Order. HRH was appointed GCVO of the order in 2010. This officially confirms that HRH is The Princess Edward, Countess Wessex. This is all fact based. Tjabulile (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

May I please have a response as I will re-insert the entry as not aligned with removal based on evidence provided. Tjabulile (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible Arthur Brum socks[edit]

Hi DrKay. You might want to keep a watch on c:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Brum since there may be three more socks being used by Brum to evade their block. You seem to have already confirmed Ragnarkhorrangor, but you might not be aware of Royalcello and HRH Prince Paul. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! DrKay (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

George V[edit]

Hi DrKay!

Regarding your latest revert edit on George V, I think it does fit in smoothly conisdering the article talks about how he attended his relative Alfonso's wedding IN 1905, just like the photograph.

Any thoughts?

Best regards, --Helomer (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the picture is very similar to the one of him and the Tsar, but the one of the Tsar is more valuable because their physical similarity is often commented upon. DrKay (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Elias Ashmole[edit]

Re this undo, the birth date isn't directly cited. There's a footnote for his birth location, but that source doesn't have an exact date. The ODNB article isn't until ref #4, supporting the death of Eleanor Mainwaring. I just added the Ashmole article to WP:Selected anniversaries/May 23 for his birth anniversary, so I need to have the citation in an appropriate location. I mean, there's no harm in having that right by the birth/death dates, is there? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 20:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You put the citation by the death date, which is cited in the article body. Per WP:CITELEAD, citations are not necessary in the lead when given in the article body. I have added the birth date to the article body. The lead should not contain material not in the body of the article. DrKay (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Works for me. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 05:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually[edit]

If you go down in the source far enough you will find a metion of (Balaenoptera musculus) its in page 109

MOS/Images[edit]

I think at this time it might be best to fully protect the page for a bit to stop the edit warring, push it to talk. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

  • DrKay, I mean, not edit warring, i.e reverting/reinstating your edit, would solve the edit warring grandly without full protection Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)4
I don't fully understand your posts. If you're commenting about me protecting the page, I can't do so because I'm involved. If your posts are here as a warning, then they are bias: you should warn both editors or neither. DrKay (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You're experienced to know this already, but a reminder that edit warring is not permitted and as an administrator you really shouldn't get into a situation where you are edit warring. Please start a discussion on the talk page about about the issue and try to resolve it through discussion. Continuing to edit war may lead to a block. Regards, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Prince Harry[edit]

Hi. It has come to me as a surprise that Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex has been listed as a start-class article on the WikiProject Military history. It might have been listed as a B or C-class article, but it is definitely not a start-class one. Should I file a request somewhere in order to reassess the article, or is it possible for you and/or other administrators to do it yourself? Keivan.fTalk 03:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe any editor can rate an article at B-class or below. DrKay (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@Keivan.f: (talk page stalker) Please see WP:MH/B? and WP:MHA. That WikiProject has certain requirements for classifying articles. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Arms of the Duchess of Cornwall[edit]

To be honest, I'm not an expert in this subject but I didn't understand why you insisted on removing the Royal Victorian Order ribbon from the coat of arms of the Duchess of Cornwall. As a Dame Grand Cross of the order, isn't she entitled to have that ribbon around the shield of her arms like Princess Margaret, the Duchess of Gloucester and the Duchess of Kent? So what was the reason behind removing it? Keivan.fTalk 15:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The source in the article (the official website) doesn't show it. The others don't seem to be sourced either. DrKay (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The royal calligrapher Tim Noad released a version of her arms featuring the circulate - [1] Keivan.fTalk 15:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
If it's reliably sourced, it's fine. DrKay (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I started a discussion about the unilateral page move and the unenforceable consensus. The focus is now being shifted from Jimbo's action to yours, so I feel required to inform you too. Surtsicna (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on it. DrKay (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this hasn't gone to move review, but I am happy to post it there. But DrKay, I think it would be better if you follow your convictions and move the page back to Meghan Markle. Who cares what people think? In any case, I don't see how anyone could accuse you of wheel-warring if you move the page as a result of a community discussion. StAnselm (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Best to leave it at Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, since majority of editors at the Rfc, are in agreement with it. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

GoodDay, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and "majority of editors" does not mean anything. The title has already been discussed. We are now discussing something else. Surtsicna (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if you're taking this thing with Jimbo, too far. But, it's your call & so I'll sit back, watch how it unravels. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I am confused about the situation now. All the administrators at the noticeboard agree with your closure, DrKay. All say that they would revert the move, but nobody has yet implemented the outcome of the move discussion. While I do not want you to get into trouble with superiors, I am quite disheartened by what's going on here. Surtsicna (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't understand the opposition by some editors to this woman's article being Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. I never heard of this woman, until she became involved with the British royal family. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Move review for Meghan, Duchess of Sussex[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Swarm 00:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

  • To reply to your procedural complaint, I'm well aware that step one is discussion, and I chose not to discuss it with you because I didn't need clarification, I wanted community review. As I said in the statement, I felt that your reading of consensus was so bad that it was either completely incompetent or willfully abusive. I say that not to insult you, but simply to respond to your point. Swarm 20:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Romania[edit]

Hi I noticed you have edited Template:Romanian Royal Family. I was reading Court Cricular 30 May 2018], Princess Margareta of Romania is referred to as Her Majesty Margareta, Custodian of the Crown of Romania in the Court Circular, so should something be updated? I am a bit out of my depth with that template. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem[2]. DrKay (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth Head of State[edit]

I appreciate the decisive action. I was literally undoing my edits when you fixed it. I should have looked at the talk page first! C5mjohn (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary![edit]

Wikipedia Administrator.svg Wishing DrKay a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Tks, Slightlymad (talkcontribs) 11:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Harry[edit]

Following up your recent edit,[3] Prince Harry's infobox, and the parenthesis in the opening sentence and the second sentence of "Early life", give his name as Henry but I can see no explanation in the article of the use of "Harry" instead of Henry. Something about this should be said: would a footnote suffice, and how would it be sourced? We can see that in the letters patent appointing him a counsellor of state (before he was made Duke of Sussex), for example, he was named as "Our most dearly beloved Grandson Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales", while his brother was named as "Our most dearly beloved Grandson Prince William Arthur Philip Louis Duke of Cambridge"[4]. It seems unlikely that if he were then Duke of Sussex, "Harry" would be used instead of Henry. Qexigator (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a footnote. DrKay (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and the footnotes fail to explain why he is known by the nickname/diminutive practically to the exclusion of Henry, other than in formal documents such as the letters patent where he was called Henry of Wales, which is unhelpful to an inquirer without prior knowledge. Qexigator (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Greek princes[edit]

Hello DrKay, Nice to meet u! i am from Myanmar, I interested about of royal familys, I created Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark, i think Constantine Alexio it notable, Old nominated for deletion since 13 May 2011. But now 2018, This article is growth, re-create royal style new version and many reliable sources. Also i want to create about of his younger brother, Prince Achileas-Andreas. I don't know Achileas is notable or Not?? possible to create?? Best regards Thazinkoko (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree now your version of the article is better than the deleted one. The talk page notice is only there to note the old discussion and does not mean that the new article will be deleted. Anyone wishing to delete it will need to open a new discussion.
Achileas-Andreas's article was deleted because it had no sources (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark). If there are now sources demonstrating notability, then I believe it can be recreated. DrKay (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for answer, I will write the best I can, please support too Myanmar's last living royal family articles ... Thank you and god bless you... Good Day 👏🏻🕊 Thazinkoko (talk) 07:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Dear DrKay, Afd tag to the article, How can i do? I don't known how to fix it! Thank dearThazinkoko (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I think, just be patient for the moment and see how the discussion goes. You've already gained some keep declarations and these articles are better than the ones that were deleted. Note that at the old deletion discussion for Achileas-Andreas everyone is for delete, but there are two for keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark (2nd nomination), three if you add yourself there. DrKay (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aaron Sorkin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thx[edit]

Thanks for your recent closures at WP:AN3. Regarding your mention of User talk:86.147.201.240 could you let me know if they seem to be causing further problems? If so they might be blocked for evasion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Export hell seidel steiner.png A beer on me!
Thanks for cleaning up after me at AN3! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


Revoking of my rollback rights due to misuse[edit]

I'm sorry. This edit war incident was entirely my fault for not following the rollback & edit guidelines. I reverted Jamie.green.75's edits without explaining it thoroughly and discussing it with others the article talk page. I took the lack of response from the warning too seriously. I was trying to fight against vandalism on Wikipedia but instead tripped on an obviously good-faith edit and confused the original editor. This was a big mistake on my part, and I will try my best not to make quick judgements on edits I'm not sure about in the future. I hope to earn back the trust you guys gave me soon. XYZt (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Indian classical music[edit]

This edit warrior[5] is back again who was previously warned by you here[6] and he does not seem to rest. Please look into it. Regards.-Kishfan (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Louda book[edit]

Do you have access to the Louda book? If so, a number of modern British royal articles could use citations for their ancestry tables. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I have it, but I'm afraid I've little to no interest in adding cites for these tables. Also, generally speaking, the charts in the book either only provide the full ancestry for 3-4 generations back at most, or only list men or monarchs and exclude the princesses/mothers, or only provide details of sovereign families and not those that married into them. Here, for example, I've cut the final generation because the chart in the book only provides full details up to the great-grandparents' generation. DrKay (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Catherine Eddowes[edit]

Hi

You have reverted my edits on Catherine Eddowes quoting WP:CITEVAR. The current citation style is inconsistent, for example, the first 2 references:

1. Evans and Rumbelow, pp. 114–140
2. Paul Begg (2006) Jack the Ripper: The Facts: 166–167; Jerry White (2007) London in the Nineteenth Century: 323–349

The first being short style, the second being not. My intent was to make citation style consistent as per WP:CITEVAR. This would have been apparent if you had not jumped in part way through the process. --John B123 (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, footnote 2 is inconsistent, so it should be formatted like the others. DrKay (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm still of the opinion that your revisions were unnecessary and an imposition of your personal preferences. --John B123 (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I have twice tried to start a discussion about this as per WP:DR to no avail. The page as it stands is a mishmash of inconsistent referencing. There are some short references without dates, some with, even for the same author names (eg Evans and Skinner & Evans and Skinner 2001). In some the year is in brackets, in some not. (Begg (2003) & Evans and Skinner 2001). The reference (book) for Evans and Skinner 2001 is missing. "Edwards" uses Kindle locations (I can't find anything on WP that suggests kindle locations are an acceptable alternative to page numbers) all others use pages. You have also managed to lose one of the authors of "Jack the Ripper: Summing Up and Verdict" during your reverts. Your comment in edit summary "the article already has an established style" is clearly not the case. I really don't understand your position in trying to block other users from resolving issues on the page. --John B123 (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Your edits did not increase consistency nor did they remove inconsistency. They increased inconsistency by introducing a new style for some citations that plastered the entire references section with large red error banners reading "Harv error: link from CITEREFEvansSkinner2002 doesn't point to any citation.", and brown warning banners in the bibliography section reading "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBegg2004.", "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFEdwards2014.", etc. Furthermore, the edits were against WP:CITEBUNDLE: references should be bundled not separated. And there were numerous typos, such as "he saw[16]>—" (extra > character), "Sequeira's inquest testimony quoted in Evans and Rumbelow, p. 128}};" (no opening {{), "209-210" and "194-197" (dash changed to hyphen)", and "195&210" (comma changed to ampersand).
I ignored your comment of 20:57 12 August because it was ignorant, absurd and hypocritical. Your edits are themselves "unnecessary and an imposition of your personal preferences". I have no preferred style but the article should be internally consistent, should follow the guidelines and should not be in clean-up categories, contain errors or have typos.
There are two references called Begg, hence they are disambiguated by year. Gaute is not an author, which can be seen by examining the actual book rather than the google advert. Google books is generally not linked unless to a specific page, per Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 29#Linking to Google Books pages. DrKay (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I find your comment of "ignorant, absurd and hypocritical" offensive, inflammatory and a breach of WP:CIVIL. That aside, your lack of response is contrary to the guidelines in WP:DR. If we only respond to comments we like the process would just grind to a halt.
I can see no error messages on this version of the page, or this (both prior to your reversions). I have also checked the source code in case error messages are suppressed by CSS. There are no error messages on the pages. I can only assume you are are using an external script that is generating the messages. This being the case, then red or brown messages mean nothing unless you know what the output is from the script being used. "Plastered the entire references section with large red error banners" is not the case for the vast majority of users. However that is all a red herring. Should you not intervened, the error messages would have disappeared as I added the sfn that linked to the particular citation. Your comments are similar to telling a builder that the walls of the house are not high enough when he's only halfway through building them.
My intended method of working was to update bibliography to use citations. Update references to books, one book at a time, which does indeed separate references. The next step if I had been allowed to get that far, would be to bundle the refs using sfnm. The final step would have been to check for and resolve any errors. Your intervention brings us back to the builder analogy.
"There are two references called Begg, hence they are disambiguated by year." is stating the obvious, my point was that there were inconsistencies such as Evans and Skinner 2001, p. 30; and Evans and Skinner, p. 197.
Before I started editing, the page (link) was anything but consistent in referencing style. A mixture of short and long refs; plain refs, cite news & cite web; inconsistent use of years/not using years; years in brackets/not in brackets; 2 books referred to in refs but not detailed in the bibliography etc. Plain text references are inherently inconsistent, different editor will apply different styles (ordering, the use of brackets etc). The advantage of using cite, sfn etc is that it brings consistency within the refs. To suggest the order imposed by sfn provides an inconsistency is illogical.
I would ask you to revert your edit with edit summary "disambiguation unnecessary". Evans and Skinner refers to "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook: An Illustrated Encyclopedia", Evans and Skinner 2001 refers to "Jack The Ripper: Letters from Hell" (which is missing from the Bibliography). Simply removing the 2001 points the ref to the wrong book. An incorrect reference is worse than no ref. --John B123 (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Ignorant, absurd and hypocritical comments do not require a response. There is no problem with disambiguating the Evans and Skinner refs or adding a book missing from the bibliography, nor have I ever claimed there is. Just another straw man for you to tilt at. Per WP:CITEVAR, you require consensus to alter from one citation style to another. You do not have consensus. DrKay (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I note you have avoided all the issues again, so further attempts at dialogue seem pointless. I would have expected more compliance to policies and guidelines from an administrator. --John B123 (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:CITEVAR is a guideline. You can see the label at the top of the page. DrKay (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, DrKay. You have new messages at Template talk:Marriage.
Message added 11:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Neve~selbert: 11:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Bradley Joseph[edit]

Would you like to fix the dead link on Bradley Joseph then? I'm working on the Cleanup List for Wikiproject Jazz and he's on a long list of articles (hundreds) with dead links.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I've already searched for an archive without success. DrKay (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Request article[edit]

Dear DrKay, Long time no talk, I request article to you! Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark. Help to create these article. Best regards Emily Khine (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It's been previously deleted, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark (2nd nomination), so it may need to go through Wikipedia:Deletion review or Wikipedia:Articles for creation. DrKay (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

AGW polar bears primary sources[edit]

Thanks for adding that. FYI, see WP:PRIMARY. We can use them, if we're careful. Doing so can be controversial. I rarely add one if there is no WP:SECONDARY source to add with it, but I commonly add both.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

java / indonesia[edit]

I did my anthrop post grad fieldwork there, specifically at a royal graveyard... javanese very very into honorifics at all turns... can be nightmarish the insistence upon the terminology as it is built into the psyche of deference...

But sheesh the malays are good at it as well [7] JarrahTree 16:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Can I apologise to you here[edit]

Hello DrKay

I am very sorry I have caused offence all over the place to you and many other senior editors. I understand I must have seemed suspicious and moody to make contributions without a profile. You must have to deal with many difficult people and was clearly (accidentally) jumping in two feet first and very much appearing to be another nutter trying to wade into a very sensitive subject. Thank you for your advice I think I am now in the right area and trying to make a helpful contribution. I am using a windows phone to make these contributions and I really didn't see any warning banner. I did of course see how the chats/debates were shut down because of my contributions and I did see that lockdown (or whatever the appropriate term is) of the page. I have been working hard to correct my errors and find and fix my mistakes. Is there anyway I could delete my misplaced contributions so far? Would that be helpful can I retract those errors. I hope this is a good place to apologise would do anything else that you might suggest to try and repair the damage or reduce the upset I have caused. Thank you for your guidance so far and I'm very sorry for my rookie errors.

Eimhin Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

There is fault on our side too. Previous history has made people over-sensitive and the structures that were put in place as a result of prior debates are cumbersome and unusual. Most of the time, article titles are discussed and debated exactly where you first thought they should be -- on the article talk page. I wouldn't worry too much about your edits so far, or the responses. DrKay (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring..eh, where?[edit]

I don't follow you. What was reverted "twice"? Can you verbally communicate, or even supply diffs as evidence of this honestly laughable notion? What are we even supposed to be "warring" over, exactly? Boundarylayer (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't be disingenuous. DrKay (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I have spent considerable time attempting to find, on what grounds you have begun this nebulous labelling, where we're supposed to be in disagreement on, over what? I have re-instated your "page needed tags" that were overlooked. I have not received any input that this trivial dropping of tags, were indeed the source of your problem. I have still to be given any indication of what you are referring to. So it seems clear at this point, that your "edit warring" suggestion, over some "page needed tags", is really what was, truly disingenuous.
Boundarylayer (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
You're obviously being disingenuous because you know that the sources are self-published: you said so yourself. Hence, you cannot misunderstand what the problem is. We do not use self-published sources, particularly on very contentious topics that are the subject of arbitration remedies and discretionary sanctions. Nor do we edit-war to remove tags when there is a 1-revert restriction on the article, unless you are a disruptive user like yourself. DrKay (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Queen Anne[edit]

Re. Queen Anne - later in the article it reads: Anne's gout rendered her lame for much of her later life.

No inverted commas there. And clearly the earlier reference doesn't make it totally clear that the "gout" was something else. I'd suggest if it was clear, I would have realised that. I think some clarification and consistency needs to be added. Marchino61 (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I remember now that the sentence where it is in inverted commas is defining the term: "pains in her limbs and eventually stomach and head". I'd misread that a few days ago as a list of items, but it is one item defined. There is probably a better way to arrange that sentence. DrKay (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

"Blade Runner" film[edit]

Hello. I have no quarrel with your latest edit, which, apart from some changes to the companies named, seems to be no more than a rearrangement of my original text, so can you please explain your edit comment: "avoid weasel words"? Perhaps I'm missing something, but I cannot see any difference between "It has been suggested that" and "leading to suggestions of". Blurryman (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It's been a week now. Am I going to get an answer to my polite question? Blurryman (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't find it polite. It comes across as snarky, and coming here to make another snide remark reinforces my first impression. DrKay (talk) 08:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)