User talk:DrKay

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

Abdul Karim[edit]

Thank you for correcting some of my incorrect edits on this page (especially nowiki, as I misread that). I wanted to let you know the only thing I changed back was "platonic relationship" into "relationship". I explained my reasoning on the talk page - I'm not trying to assert that their relationship was in fact sexual, just that we don't actually know. To have it say "platonic" (or sexual, for that matter) in the lead would seem to insinuate information that we simply do not know today. Just wanted to let you know so that you didn't think I was simply trying to revert some of your change backs :) Garchy (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There are various other formulas that can be used, such as "The Queen's maternal affection for Karim led to friction.." or cut it altogether: "The other members of the Royal Household distrusted Karim and felt themselves to be superior to him." DrKay (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I saw your second edit summary after I had replied on the talk page - your argument about modern audiences does make sense. While "platonic" may not seem necessary to me I can understand where not having it may add to confusion with the reading audience. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Garchy (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation[edit]

Hi. Recently I found these four images (1; 2; 3; 4) of some Turkish actors that have been uploaded on Wikimedia Commons. The main problem is that I think none of them are free, and I wished to nominate them for deletion but I couldn't as I'm not familiar with how things work there. Would you please explain how these files can be deleted? Keivan.fTalk 23:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I usually use the "Nominate for deletion" link on the left-hand side. DrKay (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Duchess of Edinburgh[edit]

Hi. I was going to create "Template:Duchesses of Edinburgh", but I realized that you had previously deleted a former version of it in November 2016. Per instructions I have to contact you first to understand what the reason was. Was it only because it was created by a blocked user who had violated the policies? Did you have any other reason for deleting it? Keivan.fTalk 21:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It was done as a part of a mass delete under WP:G5. I don't think there's any problem with re-creation. DrKay (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please do not waste the time of other editors[edit]

Refusing a YouTube link because it contains copyrighted content is completely valid. I have no problem with that. But removing links for spurious reasons and then changing your mind over the reasoning just wastes other people's time. Reissgo (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't changed my mind. DrKay (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
First you said you should not keep the link because it was to a commercial site.
This was a nonsense reason to zap the link.
Then you said you should not keep the link because the capitalisation was incorrect.
This was a fixable reason to zap the link.
Then you said you should not keep the link because the YouTube video broke copyright
Reissgo (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I know. I stand by all those comments. The link is commercial. The link does mis-capitalize common words. The link does break copyright. Hence, the link should not go in. DrKay (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

George III's Jubilee[edit]

You reverted my claim that Royal Jubilees began with George III, on the basis that two earlier monarchs had clocked-up fifty years. But did they celebrate jubilees? The Wiki page on jubilees states that it all started with George. Valetude (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I see no claim there that it was the first, and it would contradict other sources: Westminster Abbey (translation of tomb inscription) and Mark Ormrod (historian) in History Today: "Edward III (1327-77) has a claim to being the earliest English ruler to celebrate his golden jubilee publicly" and his book Edward III: "In 1362, as part of the jubilee celebrations, the crown responded to a request for a change in the spoken language of the law courts, and declared that in future proceedings should be undertaken not, as in the previous hundred years and more, in French, but in the native tongue of Englishmen." DrKay (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

James, Viscount Seven[edit]

Hi do you think that Viscount Severn should have this:

  • James Windsor, Viscount Severn


You could see where I am coming from though, but it's Earl of Wessex's children SHOULD have princely styles under Letters Patent 1917 but when Viscount Seven has children they would be called, Lord George Windsor. Mr Hall of England (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It would match his sister and there are sources that support such a name: However, I closed the last requested move so am not comfortable expressing a direct opinion either in support or against a new requested move, if you chose to launch one. DrKay (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought I would run it past to you as I don't want to be blocked for redirecting articles.Mr Hall of England (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It you want to move it, you will need to follow the process at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move. DrKay (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Could you do it on my behalf please because I don't want to be blocked.Mr Hall of England (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


"This has been the subject of immense (and inane) discussion". I can well imagine that the discussion was inane and I won't waste any of my time on it. In England, we use "junior" or "Jr". Don't reply. Jack | talk page 20:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The long and involved discussion of this issue demonstrated beyond doubt that there is no difference between varieties of English, whether British or American, on this matter. DrKay (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Queen Victoria[edit]

With regard to the captions in Queen Victoria, and your recent edit, of course sentence fragments need not end with a period (but see MOS:CAPFRAG for an exception to that rule). However, in my opinion, two sentence fragments one above the other, each on its own line, look awful as a caption, and in fact are normally not seen in Wikipedia articles. Whenever possible, the actual title of the painting should be used, in italics, and should come first, followed by what it is (painting, drawing, etching, etc.), the artist or photographer's name, and then the year, all separated by commas. That information can end in a period if a sentence follows it. Alternatively, the name of the artist can go first, which places more emphasis on the artist than on the title or subject of the work. See the example caption at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Example image and caption. See also the captions at Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Édouard Manet, Henri-Edmond Cross, Vincent van Gogh, Catherine the Great, Olav V of Norway, Frederick VI of Denmark.  – Corinne (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Current discussion of Quality assessment at Village Pump[edit]

There is a discussion at Village Pump (policy) that assessment of WP:Quality assessment for A-Class, B-Class, C-Class and Start-Stub articles is long antiquated and of limited valued for future purposes of Wikipedia. As you are involved in the day-to-day listing and de-listing of articles from these classes to peer review status possibly you could take a glance at the discussion of comments here [1]. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

4th Duke of Portland[edit]

How do you suggest moving this page? I could not use the regular system as the Cavendish-Scott-Bentinck page already existed. And a move is necessary and desirable as his name was not "William Bentinck"; he was born Cavendish-Bentinck. --Varavour (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requested moves. DrKay (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[edit]


Can you keep an eye on this IP's edits? They've been disruptive once again after your previous recent block. It also might be continued block evasion by the same user as before. Thanks. (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


Hi DrKay,

I think you're misreading the style guide. I understand your view re: "The Duke of ***," because that is actually a way royalty is referenced. Like "The Queen." But no such tradition applies in the U.S. So I believe your revert on "U.S. Representative" without a name attached, is incorrect. Just as most users have applied the same standard in other cases where no actual name is attached, just the office or title. I believe that conforms to the style guide. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but cabinet secretaries' titles capitalize the word "secretary", as that is not a generic noun when used as part of the full title. So the lowercasing of his current title is incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Per MOS:JOBTITLES, the standard is when the "correct formal title" is treated as a proper noun, not whether a noun is a "generic noun." So while the point is reasonable for "Secretary of the ****", the word "secretary" by itself, per the guideline, is a common noun: and as such, is not capitalized. The same applies for "representative" as that is not the correct formal title. Nor is "U.S. Representative." X4n6 (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


Hi how are you, I have a couple of redirect requests:

What do you think? I understand to Viscount Windsor. Mr Hall of England (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hussein has been discussed twice before, so should only be moved after a move discussion at the article talk page as described at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. I've no particular opinion about Ghazi. DrKay (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I think that Ghazi should be changed to Ghazi I of Iraq ASAP, but the only way Hussein I of Jordan will change is when his grandson assends to the throne as Hussein II of Jordan. Mr Hall of England (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Mr Hall of England (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

More redirects[edit]

I have another reidects for you to do on my behalf:

It would be better than what it is.Mr Hall of England (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree in this instance. Some of the heads of government have titles other than Prime Minister and it would be inconsistent with other article titles (which have the lists at one location and articles about the office at another). DrKay (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Bookspammer IP[edit]

Regarding this edit, it's just one of several dozen articles where the IP editor added this particular book to the "Sources", "Further Reading" or similar sections. I left a warning on their talk page and the activity does not seem to be continuing.

What remains is cleaning it up. Would it be possible to rollback all of these edits in one fell swoop (the ones that haven't been undone already)? Is it complicated by the fact that a helpful bot followed many of the edits with a decapitalization of a section header? If there's no better way to do it, I'll undertake the effort to do them one-by-one.

Or you could tell me my assessment of this activity as bookspamming is wrong and I'll leave things be. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to go through and undo the ones where bot edits made it more complicated. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

William Henry Bury scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the William Henry Bury article has been scheduled as today's featured article for May 18, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. Note that as per the discussion on the TFAR page, I have not deemed it appropriate to run it on his birthday. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 18, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. I have notified the other main editors. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Alexander of Greece[edit]

I have nominated this to be TFA on 11 June 2017, the centenary of his coronation. Good work. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James VI and I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry VII (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) 09:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Manual of Style: thanks[edit]

Thank you for fixing my change to Wikipedia:Manual of Style regarding the space after the degree symbol. I mis-remembered the rule, which is that a nonbreaking space is required before, not after the degree symbol in temperature contexts. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing my change to Wikipedia:Manual of Style regarding the omitted word "words". −Anomalocaris (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Belgian monarchs[edit]

Howdy. Are we numbering Belgian monarchs now? An editor has been adding/re-adding numberings to Baudouin of Belgium, Albert II of Belgium and Philippe of Belgium articles. If the Belgian monarchs are the exception, I wasn't aware of it. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It is an exeption because it is the only popular monarchy in the world, see the official page of the monarchy. Belgian Monarchs are legaly numbered, so Philip is the Seventh King of the Belgians, as you can see on the website.--Carolus (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Philippe's title is King of the Belgians, not Seventh King of the Belgians. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
hahaha; do you beleave your own theory? please source this. If you have no knolledge of the belgian official customs; just please show respect and be silent. What do you know of Belgium ? --Carolus (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Carolus: I have checked the page and it just says in French "Après l’abdication de son père, le Roi Albert II, le Prince Philippe a prêté serment le 21 juillet 2013 devant la Chambre des Représentants, en tant que septième Roi des Belges." Which when translated gives "After the abdication of his father, King Albert II, Prince Philippe took the oath on the 21st of July 2013 before the House of Representatives as the seventh King of the Belgians" Here is a link to the official document concerning his oath before the houses here. I think if the Belgian government doesn't use any kind of numbering when refering to their king then wikipedia should not either and you can search the other royal decrees and they are never signed "7th" king of the Belgians; it is a fact that he is the 7th king but it is not one of his titles. It is you as the person adding new information to prove that it is not original research and an official title and not just information. I would also suggest that you read this Wikipedia:Civility as your last comment to @GoodDay: is particularly rude and this is not the first time that you have a problem with civility. Domdeparis (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Redirecting articles[edit]

Somebody did this:

It should be:

Whoever did this is wrong.Mr Hall of England (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for beating us to fixing Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, Sisgeo (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


Just a thanks for the coding for St Edmund. Edmund Patrickconfer 06:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Alexander of Greece scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the Alexander of Greece article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 11 June 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 11, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Princes of Orléans-Braganza and of Brazil[edit]

Good evening. I would like to discuss the theme of the titles used by the House of Orléans-Braganza that I have been editing, as well as the Brazilian princes and Brazilian princesses templates, and to remedy some doubts.

Firstly I would like to talk about the titles. I know that in infobox they should contain only the substantial titles, but I believe that presenting the full name in the infobox as an alternative to the title is inappropriate. For example, in the infobox the name Prince Pedro Henrique of Orléans-Braganza is presented, instead of only "Prince Pedro Henrique", so that it becomes repetitive as it is already the title of the article and inadequate due to its length. And the title of Prince of Orléans-Braganza is already in title section of the article. So I would like to change the name, only.

Second, I would like to deal with real bonds. I was engaged in a debate about this about the Brazilian princes and Brazilian Princesses templates, I do not remember with whom, about why one does not consider the other princes born after the fall of the monarchy with the appropriate titles of Brazilian royalty, but consider those of princes of the Serbia, Infantes of Portugal, Archdukes of Austria, Grand Dukes of Russia, Princes of Prussia, etc, even being born after the fall of the monarchy in their respective countries. I have already been told that it was because they were the descendants of a woman, Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil, who was after all the only presumptive heir of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil and recognized as such; And without presenting any source that proves that it is impossible to continue the royal titles, when neither the constitution of the late empire objected to it. He said that in the templates they should only present "real princes". But now, if Brazilian princes are not real because they born after the end of the monarchy, what makes Austrians, Portuguese, Russians, Italians, Serbs, Bulgarians or Romanians born after the monarchy real, so that only the Brazilian princes template will not be introduced to the other princes? Thank you for your time and advices.

Arthur Brum (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years![edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for today's Alexander of Greece! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Good afternoon. I'm notifying you of a possible incident about administrative abuse. I'm sorry we could not have settled peacefully, since I tried. Arthur Brum (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hello DrKay and thank you for your good work in rolling back the edits made by the blocked user Qais13! I though I should tip you, that this user seem to focus quite a lot on the articles Princess Amalie of Hesse-Darmstadt , Caroline of Baden, and Frederica of Baden. My best greetings, --Aciram (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


Is British isn't she, a British passport holder? Govindaharihari (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe so. DrKay (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
You made this edit though - its ok, british and english seem to be so poorly followed here, thanks for your edits. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
That's just undoing a block evader as part of a mass rollback. I have no opinion either way on the content itself. DrKay (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Brum[edit]

I see you warned Arthur Brum about his uploads. He has had files deleted multiple times from not only Wikipedia, but also from Commons and is in fact indefinitely blocked on Commons for repeatedly uploading copyright violations. Obviously, there's more to Wikipedia than just images, and he seems to be positively contributing in other ways. Maybe his English ability is an issue here? Anyway, I am not quite sure if this is a case of WP:CIR or WP:IDHT when it comes to images, but I do think his continued uploading of this one particular image is going to eventually lead to a block. Do you have any suggestions on how to possibly better explain this to him so that he does not upload the file again? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's a language issue because the notices at commons are multi-lingual. I did post two bespoke messages on his talk page in addition to the template messages. I fear we will have to block if the image uploads continue. DrKay (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I think you may be right. The image in question has been deleted multiple times by different admins on Wikipedi and Commons, only to be re-uploaded again. I even think is was uploaded under a different name as File:Domluis.jpg. Persistance can be an admirable quality in many instances, but this is really not one of them. I suspect that the image will be re-uploaded once again after it is deleted this time around, and that will likely be one time too many. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi again DrKay. File:Prince Luiz of Orléans-Braganza.png uploaded again by Arthur Brum despite it previously being deleted as replaceable fair use on multple occasions. I'm not sure whether this is a competency issue or an "I don't care" issue, but I don't see a lot of options left beside blocking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I saw that you indefinitely blocked him. I don't think there was any other real option is this case, especially after he posted that he intended to continue uploading that particular file regardless of how many times it is deleted for violating policy. I wasn't aware of any socking and not sure about his other edits, but I don't think he has the competence (at least not at this time) to responsibly upload any files at all. I think that any unblocking should include a condition that he not directly upload any file to Wikipedia until such a time where it is deemed that he has a better understanding of WP:COPY and WP:NFC; he can makes requests at WP:RI or WP:FFU whenever he wants to upload a file. The condition can be removed there are no further problems with image licensing after a certain period of time or a certain number of requests. If he's unwilling to agree to such a thing, then I'm not sure he should be unblocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi again DrKay. What you do you think about Ignácio? It's a new account created shortly after you blocked Arthur Brum. Looking at the user page, the person identifies himself as Arthur Brum. I was going to start an SPI, but I wait to hear from you first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Moving articles[edit]

Can you please move the pages Nevvare HanımefendiPeyveste HanımefendiSerfiraz Hanımefendi, and Şayeste Hanımefendi to Nevvare HanımPeyveste HanımSerfiraz Hanım, and Şayeste Hanım. Retrieverlove (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

no we do not[edit]

  • How can you comment on the quality of content you can't see?
  • No WP:DEADLINKs are not removed and there is a warning for those who do: {{uw-deadlink}}, however replacing or repairing them is acceptable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedians access to google books[edit]

Can Wikipedia users have access to google books which have snippet view or no view at all? Retrieverlove (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. There is a list of available resources at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. DrKay (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Mary of Teck[edit]

Could you explain how my editing here is CIRCULAR? Thanks. Quis separabit? 16:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The reference for the lung cancer is a wikipedia mirror. DrKay (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Vote on Alien material move[edit]

Could you take another look at your vote to Oppose [here]. It seems by what you said that you support having the information kept on the main page itself, and not the franchise page:

"Pointless. The shorts are already covered in the Marketing section of the Prometheus article."

The proposal you voted on, albeit clumsily written by the editor who proposed it, would be to maintain the state of affairs you mention above, by ensuring material that would otherwise be located on the main pages be kept off of these franchise pages. The references to the material on the franchise pages would then be deleted or edited down to be descriptions "of one sentence only." This keeps the bulk of the material on the main pages, just as you mentioned in your quote above. If that is indeed something you'd prefer to happen, then I kindly ask you to review your Oppose vote by changing it to Support. Thank you for your time, it's much appreciated. — SpintendoTalk 14:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

British royalty[edit]

I was considering placing "of the United Kingdom" after Queen Elizabeth II, in the intro at Diana, Princess of Wales. But then, I'd have to do that for all the bio intros of the British royal family. This move would've been strongly resisted by at least one Canadian monarchist :) GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales[edit]

I'm curious. Wasn't Diana a Lady before she married Prince Charles, based on her father's elevation on her grandfather's death? I get confused but doesn't that make her Lady Spencer. What about her mother? Face-confused.svg  — Myk Streja (what?) 06:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

She was Lady Diana before she married. Lady Spencer is the title for the wife of Lord Spencer not their daughters. After her marriage her courtesy title of Lady Diana was not used officially, as she had higher styles by marriage. DrKay (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[edit]

Hi! Perhaps you remember that you previously identified a block-evader who kept edit-waring on Amalie of Hesse-Darmstadt? Well, here we go again, so I think some of these articles could need protection: Just to let you know! Best greetings, --Aciram (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)