User talk:DrKay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:DrKiernan)
Jump to: navigation, search

Theatre Royal, Drury Lane[edit]

I do so worry that the article has fallen into a state of such disrepair, that a a delisting is somewhat inevitable. Shame really. CassiantoTalk 20:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm possibly flogging a dead horse here but I still stand by the suggestions I made on the talk page way back in March. I can revisit it as I still have the books I mentioned if it's felt worthwhile? SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not concerned by that material particularly. I do think it is relevant to the article topic, and so should not be cut totally. On the remaining three "citation needed" tags, the material in the first two cases can be cut without detriment to the article flow. It is the third case: "The King's Company never recovered financially ... The new house was financed through selling more company shares, which meant that yet more money had now to be made from ticket sales" that needs addressing, because that is part of the story and ought to be retained with a cite. DrKay (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

George V WWI campaign medals[edit]

I notice you deleted the mention of the king's WWI campaign medals, sourced to the Complete Peerage. I take your point about 'honours awarded to oneself are not really honours' but that was far from my mind. I believed I was correcting a noticeable omission, as he did wear the decorations (witness several post WWI full dress uniform pictures) and I thought their presence on his chest and in record should be acknowledged. However it would be dismissive to consider it was a case of appropriating campaign medals for himself ex officio. Those three medals were not all the medals awarded for service in WWI, and note there were other campaigns taking place in his reign that qualified for the Army and Navy General Service Medals and India General Service Medals and Africa General Service Medals - but he did not award them to himself (rightly so as he never visited, let alone served in, these further flung campaigns). (Did George VI did similar in WWII?)Cloptonson (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Ancestry magazine[edit]

Hi DrKay. As you had added this source (Williamson, D. (1981a). "The Ancestry of Lady Diana Spencer". Genealogist's Magazine 20 (6): 192–199 and Williamson, D. (1981b). "The Ancestry of Lady Diana Spencer". Genealogist's Magazine 20 (8): 281–282) to Diana, Princess of Wales' ancestry charts, I assume that you have access to it. Another administrator just wants to make sure that there's information on this source that says Diana was of English, German, Scottish, Irish and British-American descent. Does this citation support the material that I mentioned above? Keivan.fTalk 17:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Keivan.fTalk 17:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Not really. It's a list of ancestors with their birth and death dates not a defined ethnic breakdown. DrKay (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Prince Philip[edit]

If that were so the category Converts to Anglicanism would not exist. He was received into the Anglican Church officially after having been a baptized member of the Greek Orthodox Church. That would mean he left Greek Orthodoxy to become an Anglican (converted). -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

He is also included in the article List of people who have converted to Anglicanism. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
If the category should not exist, then nominate it for deletion. Note the list was previously nominated for deletion because of BLP concerns[1], the creator promised action that never came[2]. I've removed the unsourced material. DrKay (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I did not say the category "should not exist", because people do convert to Anglicanism from other faiths and Christian traditions. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

George VI and his religion[edit]

Hello DrKay. I have been watching your recent edits on the subject of George VI's religious background with some interest. Specially when it came to the anti-Scottish bias. I have a question. Are British royal persons received into the Church of Scotland as well as into the Church of England? I suppose that at the time of his birth the Church of Scotland was still an established Church and I also suppose that the two churches are in communion with each other. What is the background of this? Thanks. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

If we mention his religion at all, would Anglican communion be an option? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The Church of Scotland is not part of the Anglican Communion; it is Presbyterian. The Church of England and the Episcopal Church of Scotland are in communion, but the Presbyterian churches are not in full communion with any of the Episcopal ones. They are different traditions. The royal family usually worships with the Church of Scotland (which is the national church of Scotland but has not been established for centuries) when in Scotland and with the Church of England (which is the established church in England) when in England. George VI was also Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland in 1929. DrKay (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Dates of death[edit]

Please stop removing dates of death from spouse entries in infoboxes, and any similar changes you are making, at least until there can be a discussion about this.—Anomalocaris (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I already have. DrKay (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
With the best of intentions, you made this change to 84 articles. Several of these changes have been reverted back to Wikipedia standard. What are your plans to revert the rest? —Anomalocaris (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I am waiting for the outcome of the discussion as to whether "widowed" should continue to be used or not. DrKay (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
BTW, you have miscounted: the AWB software informs me that there were 82 edits made and not all of these were this change. You have counted the number of edits between the first and last AWB edits and included the ones between that do not relate to this matter. It's 67, of which 3 have been reverted. DrKay (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

sharmanic2002[edit]

I have already added reference to Edit made in Hyderabad .. Do you want both Reference and Edit Summary to be filled .. Please advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharmanic2002 (talkcontribs) 06:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The reliability of that reference has been questioned. The official stats, which you removed, are clear and reliable. The origin of the data given at the census2011.co site is not clear. It needs to be discussed on the article talk page or the reliable sources noticeboard, so that we can determine whether or not it is a reliable source. DrKay (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: your message to me[edit]

You made no mention of the edit you object to. I do use logical quotation, along with logical and consistent punctuation of every kind, which is sadly lacking. I'm constantly amazed at all the various style inconsistencies, including misuse of punctuation; spacing and capitalization; spelling errors; assorted grammatical errors; awkward sentence structure, etc. I have even seen a number of inconsistent factual errors; however, they've been in areas I've been reluctant to change.

My intent is not to make any substantial changes, but instead to improve readability of the articles. I'm afraid I'm not well enough to do more at this time.

Please let me know the specific entry/ies you're referring to.

WriteinEnglish 05:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WriteinEnglish (talkcontribs)

Al-Wehda[edit]

Hi DrKay, all clubs that you mentioned are called Al-Wahda not Al-Wehda, Al-Wahda SC (Tripoli) and for the Yemeni clubs you can see RSSSF and Soccerway. The only club called Al-Wehda with E is the Saudi club. Hazal (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

As explained during the two requested moves on the article talk page, the words Wehda and Wahda are interchangeable. There are sources calling the Saudi club Al-Wahda, including RSSSF and Soccerway, just as there are sources calling the other clubs Al Wehda Sana'a, Al Wehda Aden and Al-Wehda (Tripoli). DrKay (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

What about FIFA? here Al-Wehda Saudi, Al-Wahda Tripoli, Al-Wahda Aden and Al-Wahda Sana'a. Hazal (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

There have been two previous requested moves at this page. If you wish to propose a change to the current title, please follow the process at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. DrKay (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Population[edit]

Could you tell me the presence of this population number.--Vin09(talk) 07:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hyderabad#Demographics, sourced to the official government census table at http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/paper2/data_files/India2/Table_2_PR_Cities_1Lakh_and_Above.pdf. DrKay (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
It's a provisional population. Not final. Please check this ref.--Vin09(talk) 16:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Then you will need to remove the made-up Hindu-Muslim proportion since that figure is reliant on there being 6,993,262 persons, as User:Vensatry stated on the article talk page. DrKay (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the info. I'll join the discussion in its talk page.--Vin09(talk) 05:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Choctaw Contribution[edit]

DrKay, I am trying to run down the sources from 1847 on the amount of the Choctaw contribution to Irish aid. You say "sources from 1847" - I'd like to know what sources. Not saying you are wrong, this discrepancy has existed since 1847 and I'd like to get to the bottom of it. The source referenced in Debo's book is Niles' Register, May 1, 1847[1] which states $710 (see the scanned image of the article), yet Debo's book has $170. I can only conclude that either Debo misquoted her source, or was relying on a secondary source which misquoted Niles' Register. It in turn references an article in the Arkansas Intelligencer, which I suspect is the original source. I haven't been able to find a scan of that article yet. It would be very ironic if Niles' Register transposed the numbers from the Arkansas Intelligencer to get the $710 figure, and then Debo transposed them again from Niles' Register and ended up with the original amount.

Article from Niles' Register on the Choctaw Contribution for Irish relief

DrHenley (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have access to a scan. One would certainly be useful. There are transcripts at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/IRISH-AMERICAN/2004-04/1082661331 and in Christine Kinealy's book A Death-Dealing Famine on pages 111-112. See also http://www.tulsaworld.com/archives/irish-gala-to-salute-choctaws/article_88604cfb-ae54-5b6f-973a-5c38c2735139.html, http://www.afri.ie/news-and-events/irish-choctaw-famine-link/ and http://www.president.ie/en/media-library/speeches/speech-on-the-occasion-of-her-visit-to-the-choctaw-tribal-complex. DrKay (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Seems I need to find the original article in the Arkansas Intelligencer, as that seems to be where everything is pointing. Libray of Congress has it on microfilm. Next time I visit my daughter in Alexandria, VA, I'll see if I can take a look at it in the Newspaper Reading Room at the LOC. DrHenley (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Niles' Register, LXXII (1847), p 139

Adrian Romay-Habsburg[edit]

Hello DrKay, could you shed your light on this? Seems like an exercise in self aggrandizement to me. There are articles on the Spanish and Portuguese Wiki's as well... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that was very speedy! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
And thank you for your action on the Portuguese one. That is epic! I had already asked a Portuguese speaking user to take a look at it, but I think and hope this will lead to good results! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Page has been deleted on the Portuguese Wiki. We'll see what happens to the Spanish one. Good work! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Turns out that the Spanish version was deleted as well. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello DrKay. I've been receiving an e-mail from R.F. Casa de Austria, that says: "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx." This of course in Spanish. I have been removing the sentence: "y con la Casa de Austria o Habsburgo española, con la celebración del enlace de D. Felipe de Romay con Dña. Margarita de la Cruz de Habsburgo el día 17 de septiembre de 1679, coincidiendo esta fecha con los aniversarios de las muertes de su padre D. Juan José de Austria y de su abuelo el Rey Felipe IV." from the Casa de Romay article. A sentence remobed previously by you and also by other editors there that seems to suggest a Romay connection with a non-existent daughter of Juan of Austria The Younger. I'm not al all proficient in Spanish and use Google Translate to see what's going on there. These people seem intent on keeping some genealogical connection between them and the Spanish Habsburg on record there. I am aware of Wikipedia:No legal threats on the English language Wiki and an equivalent page on the Spanish Wikipedia. The thing is I'm not sure how to go about reporting this incident there, specially as I can't write a single Spanish sentence. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello DrKay. I posted this text:

"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sobre el tema de mis últimos cambios en la página de Casa de Romay Soy consciente de que hacer amenazas legales tiene consecuencias en la Wikipedia en español. Las ediciones implicadas son sin fuentes. Este conflicto es una consecuencia de la eliminación temprana de la página Adrián Romay Habsburgo. Lo siento por el mal español.

I do not really speak any Spanish and use Google translate. I have only a vague idea where to put this complaint about a legal threat. This conflict by an apparent hoaxer (R.F. Casa de Austria) began on the English language Wikipedia and has spilled over to this one. However I receiv a a legal threat in my mailbox now and I know that has consequences on the English language version as wel as on the Spanish language one Thank you."

on the usertalkpage of the editor that deleted the article yesterday. I placed the same text here on what I hope is the appropriate page to file a complaint there. Thanks for your intervention on the article again. Let's see what happens. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Good luck! If that fails, you could try approaching someone you know in Category:User es-5 or one of the bilingual stewards at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards, explaining that an editor is (1) hoaxing across multiple language wikipedias from four different accounts (User:Aromay, User:Romayhabsburgo, User:FundaciónAustria and User:R.F. Casa de Austria) and the 54.240.197.* IPs; and (2) sending you legal threats by email. DrKay (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that useful summary. I'll insert that and will contact a steward when necessary. I'm not too worried about the legal threat, but I am operating under my real name on Wikipedia... A decision I made long ago and one that may not be all that fortunate in the circumstances, but I don't really expect any lawyers at my door... I have also noticed now I had to put my request here. I used some of the text you gave me. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems to have worked all right for now. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Pffffffff.... Well, that's over with. I hope. They (the Spanish Wiki) eliminated all my text that included the legal threat even from Wiki memory. That's probably necessary for some reason. Might you want to do that too on your page? They just forgot one. Which I pointed out to them here! Thanks for your help in this! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I just got this from the Spanish admin. I xxxxxxx ed the text of the email in our talk. If you think it's safer to remove it from Wiki memory... well do that if you can. Maybe I'm a paranoid, but better paranoid than sorry...Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyright infringement[edit]

Several images that are obviously in copyright have been uploaded to Wikipedia and used at Cullinan Diamond:

It cannot be justified since a free alternative is available. (I will upload that one.) I would also draw your attention to this image which is being "used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media", and there is a free alternative at the Commons. Firebrace (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if https://www.paimages.co.uk/image-details/2.12759986 is public domain now? It says "Copyright H.M Queen" from 1960, so if it was Crown copyright, it would have expired by 2011. There's a copy at http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-middleton-prince-william-christening-2480948 without such an obvious watermark. DrKay (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Unless the Queen took the photo herself in a non-professional capacity then yes it will have been Crown copyright. However, it is such a poor quality image that I would not bother with it. An 'external media' link to the Royal Collection page would be best, in my view... Firebrace (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Pocahontas[edit]

Per Template:Infobox person & Template:Marriage/doc the date or year the marriage ended by death is a permitted parameter, your AWB edit removed that information so I have restored it. Shearonink (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Marriage should only give the date of death of the spouse, not the article subject, as explained at the template, and decided unanimously on the talk page. The death date of the subject is already given in the infobox, so it is unnecessary to repeat it. DrKay (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah, yes, that makes sense. By the way, I would have adjusted it myself (I was just going to change it but you got there first...) Speedy! Shearonink (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for List of sons of King Abdulaziz ibn Saud by seniority[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing—List of sons of King Abdulaziz ibn Saud by seniority—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 62.64.152.154 (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

File:LwHUy0eHaSBScQ edited by DrKiernan.jpg[edit]

Hi DrKay, would you please unprotect File:LwHUy0eHaSBScQ edited by DrKiernan.jpg, which you protected with the reason "User request within own user space: file created/uploaded by me as part of dispute resolution for use in my own user space", since it is neither used in your userspace nor part of an ongoing dispute. Regards, FASTILY 02:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Higham and the Duchess[edit]

Is a main source for the "interesting trivia" about the person - as Higham has been rather fully discredited for the "interesting trivia" I suggest it is not a reliable source for much of anything at all, and a line basically saying that "thus and such is totally dismissed by historians as fantasy" (which is the actual status of the Higham claims) it would make sense to excise the "interesting falsehoods" from any article. Collect (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not following you. The rumors of the China dossier and the Ciano abortion pre-date Higham by decades. He's not the source of them; he was merely repeating them, just as King and Sebba, and others, do. DrKay (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, he is the only person to believe the rumours - see Charles_Higham_(biographer) and read The Daily Telegraph obit. He is pretty much demolished in any scholarly circles at this point. Collect (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not in favour of whitewashing history. The fact is that the claims were made; that they were wrong doesn't mean that we should excise them. People claimed Anastasia survived; they claimed James I was gay; they claimed the Duke of Clarence was Jack the Ripper. They were wrong. But these claims are part of their historiography; we should report the rumors with appropriate counter-evidence not remove all mention of them or pretend they were never spread. DrKay (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC Dutch/Netherlands Lion[edit]

User:DrKay, you might be interested in this RfC. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:DrKay, concerning your action on this article I would also like to mention that after the recent renaming, massive changes were made in the related categories. I've earlier requested for these to be mended, but was rather abruptly dismissed here. I suppose (just guessing) that User:Nyttend may have thought that the name "Order of the Dutch Lion" was the one that had stood for eight years. That is how I understand his earlier edit summary. I'm not going to pursue the matter concerning the categories again until the RfC leads to some conclusion however. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
User:DrKay,Thanks by the way for your action. I forgot that earlier, sorry. Still, I'm now being accused of apparently having nefarious purposes in this matter. Not that I've handled it all that brilliantly, but I think, this (see the lower section) is a bit over the top. So is this edit summary. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of counties in Virginia may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Damn you[edit]

You, Acroterion, ScrapIron and Binksternet are selfish people who would never give others a second chance. Even the most logical would agree that some of my edits are justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.99.28 (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Coruña, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Molina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guadalajara, Castilla-La Mancha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santillana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

IP hopper on the Juliana and other knighthood articles[edit]

Hello User:DrKay. I would like to mention this edit I made. I understand there seems to be some background and I thought it best not to bring that up here because it's none of my business and I'm also not sure it will be helpful in the immediate situation, but just so you know. Thanks! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

In desperate need of your help[edit]

Greetings. I'm in desperate need of some help. It's a long story but I'll try to condense it as much as I can. Several years ago I had an account on here by the name of LouisPhilippeCharles. I was blocked through the machinations of several spiteful and immature users on here. Eventually I contacted an admin who was able to revive my old account (I had long since forgotten the password) as LouisPhiliuippeCharlesNew. Within about 45 minutes of happily editing away, I found myself blocked again, despite having done nothing wrong. I have tried to contact the admin that who revived my Louis account but he has since abandonned me and pretty much ignores me. Which in itself is spiteful. I was under the impression that Wikipedia was for everyone as opposed to a privileged few who are able to treat others as they wish. Alas, I come to you for help. I'm literally begging. I made at least 35/400 articles in my time on Wikipedia one of which is a "Good Article" but things like that are totally and almost conveniently forgotten. Long story short, may I had your email address to discuss this with you? My email is tom.june13@gmail.com, TTom being my name because I'm actually a person, you know with feelings.

Please help me. 92.24.43.71 (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)