User talk:DrKay

I have been monitoring the situation at Alexandra of Denmark and it appears that users YorkDr and Luke Darby are the same person. The editing patterns, the information they are trying to forcefully insert into the page, etc. all appear to be the same. As an administrator, I think you are in a position to investigate this matter and put an end to their potentially disruptive behavior. Keivan.f^Talk 19:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I've made the templates of David I, George III, Victoria, Edward VII, George V, George VI consistent (by adding King, Queen, Emperor, Empress), with the templates of Elizabeth II & Charles III. I've contacted @Keivan.f: & @Fry1989: about this. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done the same, with the templates of the consorts. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. Before I make a submission to Heads of former ruling families given I had two warnings prior on the page, I wanted to verify with you. I did research on this topic and not place my personal opinion on the matter to ensure neutrality, but I found two legal claimants to the throne, Alexander Prinz von Sachsen and Daniel von Sachsen. Article VII of the Polish Constitution of 3 May 1791 made the throne hereditary for Frederick Augustus I of Saxony and his descendants. The only citations I could find are both articles from the "royalcentral.co.uk"[1][2]. Thanks. JayzBox (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A source from 1791 cannot be used to support claims made after 1791. royalcentral is a self-published group blog and therefore not a Wikipedia:Reliable source. DrKay (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay A few weeks before I put forth the suggestion of creating a William, Prince of Wales Taskforce on the article's Talk Page given my status as the article's fourth highest author and third highest contributor in terms of edits. Given your status as an administrator and also your own significant contributions to the article, I thought that it would be good idea to have your opinion on this matter. I would not have added this to your Talk Page if you had replied on the article's Talk itself. Anyways expecting your repky on this. Regards MSincccc (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your talk page post but didn't comment because it is not something I would join or oppose. DrKay (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay Then should I go forward assuming that you like Keivanf. has agreed to the proposal? By the way, thanks for the reply. Regards and yours faithfully MSincccc (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed. You don't need my approval to proceed. DrKay (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay You had previously made it known that you are not opposed but still won't be joining the Taskforce. Though joining it might be a matter of personal choice and at your discretion, given your status as one of WP's administrators and that you are a featured article coordinator, I would appreciate if you could temporarily join the Taskforce as a mentor and provide valuable advice so that we can accomplish our primary objective at this point-to get William's article to FA. I hope you will help and your reply will be a positive one. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you recently reverted my edits adding the titles and styles of Paul of Greece? Could you please just expand on your reasons for the revert? Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 13:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The four I already gave are sufficient. DrKay (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they weren't, I just simply asked if you could expand. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Therealscorp1an: The page has multiple sfn and harv reference errors. You've added short footnotes without adding details of the books. DrKay (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I edited down some of the reams of domestic trivia they've poured into the article, but they've put it all back, with an edit note reply: "I do not understand how details make an article a hagiography" – this while removing a Chips Channon-cited sentence on his early life as a rake. If scalpelling verbosity amuses you, you may want to look at the edits. MisterWizzy (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I saw the edit you made regarding the spelling of Frederick vs. Frederik, and thought inform you of a discussion regarding this very topic incase you weren't aware and were wanting to add your oppinion. You can find the discussion here. EmilySarah99 (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I was wondering if you could move the page on Jefri Bolkiah, Prince of Brunei to Prince Jefri Bolkiah, and the page on Princess Azemah of Brunei to Princess Azemah Ni'matul Bolkiah. I couldn't find any previous discussions concerning the titles of either pages. In terms of reasoning, "Prince of Brunei" is not a substantive title. The move would also make it consistent with the pages on his siblings Prince Mohamed Bolkiah, Prince Sufri Bolkiah, and Princess Masna Bolkiah. The other page should also be made consistent with Princess Rashidah Sa'adatul Bolkiah, Princess Majeedah Nuurul Bolkiah, and Princess Fadzilah Lubabul Bolkiah, none of which use territorial designations. I thought maybe you could help with the situation. Best. Keivan.f^Talk 22:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DrKay@DrKay you recently left a notice on my talk page accusing me of using multiple accounts and being another user without providing any explanation (Notice: Using multiple accounts of User:QQxawn).

I don't appreciate that, and looking between the two accounts and editing history, other than adding and removing my username from Wikiproject:royalty members, I really cannot see why you accused me of that or coordinating offline with that user (??). If you were curious for an explanation and you could have asked on my talk page. But put simply, I was unsure if I would be receiving multiple notifications about the topic and have other interests, and didn't really care to become an official member of the Wikiproject.

Regardless, I don't think that's enough to accuse any user of sockpuppetry. Hopefully you understand why this is perceived as being inflammatory to me and would appreciate a more neutral approach to any concerns moving forward. Thanks, Cibrian209 (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a template message. I'm not responsible for the phrasing, which by the way is the 'soft' version for when suspected editors are acting in good faith and doesn't even directly accuse you. It says may and points you at the guideline only. Frankly, your over-reaction makes you look more suspicious not less. DrKay (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I, like most people, get offended by unwarranted false accusations and frankly, aggressive responses. If that makes me look more suspicious in your eyes, so be it and feel free to monitor if you believe so. However, thanks for your explanation. Best, Cibrian209 (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr Kay

Thank you for your many valued contributions to Wiki – great work.

I understand your comments to my recent amendments on Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh – well noted with thanks. Although you reverted my changes en masse (presumably for ease), I hope you won’t my revisiting them accordingly, that is, should you be agreeable to my refining these improvements ofc! So in the spirit of Wiki collaboration, let me outline what & why to the relevant changes in advance, if okay:

• Prince Edward was created Earl of Forfar & she then assumed by courtesy the style Countess of Forfar - "making her" is definitely not correct / "becoming" less formal or "styled" is the correct parlance.
• St John Service Medal (with bar) – typo.
• Queen Elizabeth II Platinum Jubilee Medal qv. https://www.homesandantiques.com/antiques/royal-family-medals - so many were issued no paramount reference source exists (however HRH wears this medal at official public events for all to see).
• Most Venerable is the correct prefix for the Order of Saint John qv. https://ordersofsaintjohn.org/orders-of-st-john/mvo/ - "Venerable" is a colloquialism originating from how the Knights of Malta refer to their protestant confrères...
• Linking Sash before the Order of the Eagle is a relevant and useful link surely?
• The caption to the image of Sophie at Kandahar shows her wearing combat dress – “dressed” is not the usual way of describing this...
• CoA: accept most of your comments - very helpful. But with regard to the grant of arms – “include” (not “apply”) is the correct terminology;
  nor is the blazon correct (whereas it states ‘’for Rhys-Jones’’ for the sinister shield it omits any mention of “for Prince Edward” or “Prince Edward’s differenced Royal Arms” or what I stated initially – no biggie, but some note is required;
  capitalization of the colours and charges is correct blazoning in heraldry;
  lastly and definitely not least! is that her arms should display the augmentation of honour for a GCStJ in chief – Wiki’s image was created before she was appointed a Dame Grand Cross of the Order of St John and this is to be updated. To see her latest arms, qv. https://twitter.com/littlemuoitom/status/1669680859564371978 (this is not preferred link but at least you have a visual).

Very many thanks for your sterling work & I trust the above comments are to your satisfaction.

Best Primm1234 (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When updating the article, please remove the tagged source and replace it with one that supports the article content rather than just removing the maintenance template and retaining the invalid source. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Kay

Done! And, I included a couple of extra explanatory links, such as "remainder" & "impalement" - hope okay...

Best Primm1234 (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't link common words or use decorative icons, thanks. DrKay (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 2 March 2024 (second appearance). Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for the 2008 article! - On Smetana's 200th birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the reversions if those were new on Akihito, Naruhito, etc. I actually arrived at the issue because they were being removed from articles with shoguns listed, Emperor Meiji and Emperor Kōmei. In at least the case of Emperor Kōmei, which is on my watchlist, the shoguns were already there well before January. Perhaps there is a case to be made for dealing with the postwar and/or post-Meiji Restoration governments in different ways, but I think the shoguns should stay on the earlier articles. Best, Dekimasuよ! 08:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i restored some notes for turkmenistan from an old revision here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_totalitarian_regimes&diff=1208464271&oldid=1207768933 but when you click on note a and note b it dosent work, meybe it needs reintegration with the other notes Gooduserdude (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use <ref group=note> not {{efn}}. DrKay (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay Is it possible for a single article to be co-nominated for Featured Article Status by two significant editors in case both want to be credited with the article being upgraded to FA status. In that case, what should be done, given both are the top two editors as well as among the top five authors of the concerned article? Your advice will be valuable. Looking forward to knowing from you,

Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. When you click on the initiate the nomination link, a pre-populated window will open. Part of the code in that window is <small style="font-style:italic;">Nominator(s): ~~~~</small>. Add the co-nominator as done here. DrKay (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay The discussion you started yesterday on the talk page for the article William, Prince of Wales has reached a new stage. We have one user clearly opposing the first sentence claiming that the other 14 thrones also need to be mentioned. They also want to override at Charles III's talk page. You are invited to the discussion, that's all I wanted to say and look for yourself what you can do about it. Looking forward to knowing from you,

Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DrKay the page above has been susceptible to disruptive edits made by IP users in the recent past which led me, being its most significant author and second largest editor, to request autoconfirmed semi-protection for the article. The protection expired earlier this month since when the disruptive IP edits have returned. A user has granted pending changes protection to the article for 3 months but another disruptive edit was made to the page by an IP user after the protection settings were revised. Louis' siblings pages have been granted semi-protection for an indefinite period and they are very much stable. I felt that this article should have similar protection settings. Looking forward to knowing from you, Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can maybe do something once the current pending changes protection expires in May, but I would prefer not to undo other administrators' actions at this time. DrKay (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay I authored a new page titled Wealth of Elon Musk this morning. Although it has undergone review, it doesn't appear in search results when I look for it. Could you please enlighten me on the cause for this? Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay A request for a new consensus as to how William should be described in his article's lead has started. Please join in the discussion and put forth your views. Looking forward to knowing from you, Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay The pending changes protection has expired this month for the above article. Could you provide it a sort of permanent protection in the same manner as done for Louis's siblings? It would be greatly appreciated as it would prevent IP users from unnecessarily disrupting the article as done in the past. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on it, but at present I don't think there's sufficient activity to justify protection. DrKay (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Drkay! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need support to move Sean O'Malley.Marty2Hotty (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marty2Hotty: You might not aware, but you can NOT do that to ask/inform/persuade another editors to support what you have nominated for - see Wikipedia:Canvassing. Kindly stop immediately. Cassiopeia talk 00:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Christopher of Bavaria, aren't redirect targets generally supposed to be bold? jonas (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm facing resistance from Miesianiacal in Monarchism in Canada (see [3]) and Republicanism in Canada (see Talk:Republicanism in Canada) against posting recent polling results from the last two years that suggest support for the monarchy has fallen behind support for a republic. This is despite the fact that the Monarchism article cites several polls - all of which are at least 15 years old. He insists any reference to the result of the newer polls is POV. There really should be a combined RFC on both articles. I don't really have the skill, time, patience, or interest in doing so so if you or someone else is able to do so it would be helpful. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wellington Bay: I have started a discussion at WP:ANI#Monarchy of Canada about this kind of behavior. Thanks for the email. DrKay (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay Would you please help me out with one issue if possible? I am seeking guidance not canvassing around or trying to prove anything. Would you listen me out? Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will listen, yes. DrKay (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay Is there any reason for me to be held up for each of the 3 GAs I have successfully nominated? An editor still has concerns regarding it which you will find at the GA nominations talk page. I am one of the top five authors as well as a frequent editor to each of those three articles. Please verify so that the other editor can understand. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is that for articles like Sherlock Holmes, where Palindromedairy is clearly a major editor, you raise your desire to nominate the article for GA status either at the personal talk pages of major contributors or on the article talk page. Allow a reasonable interval for any objections to be raised, or for editors to agree a joint nomination, before starting the GA nomination. For any article for which I am listed as a major contributor, you may assume that you have my blessing to take the article to GAN without further input from me. DrKay (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay No my request is that are the three GAs attributed to me valid as SerialNumber 54129 has raised concerns about it. I wanted this to be resolved. Further, Chris Troutman said that I was trying to game the system which is not the case nor was I canvassing around. Also he believes that my claims of being a significant author to Catherine and William's articles are not realistic despite me being the second highest editor and among the top five authors. I have left the Sherlock Holmes issue behind. The focus is now on these royalty related articles which you yourself know have significantly contributed for over two years. I was seeking assistance being a middle-school boy. Hence awaiting your views on the same. Regards and would like to know from you soon, MSincccc (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's an agreed definition of "significant". In some cases there will be a clear main contributor, who will probably expect to be consulted or included in any nomination. Other articles are more of a joint effort. Personally, I don't have a problem with your nominations, see no evidence of impropriety, and can see that you are listed as a top editor in the page statistics. I am happy with any process that assists with article quality. I think it's more a question of being mindful that other editors might expect to be consulted if they've put a lot of effort into a particular article. DrKay (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay But I am the prime author of Ivanka Trump's and Charlotte's articles as well as being among the top five in terms of edits made. Furthermore, Keivan was fine with my nomination for Catherine's GA given he's the only author above me who frequently works on the article. How can then another editor then raise such questions and rather aggressively, if I can use the term. One final convincing response and I will not bother you any further. Thanks for your time. Looking forward to hearing from you once more. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of impropriety personally. In my opinion, the accusations against you are unconvincing. DrKay (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay Just one last doubt here. Do you feel that I should renominate Prince George for GA as the reviewer AndrewPeterT has been inactive for almost two days. I would like to know from you on this matter. Have a great day and thanks for your words. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would wait a further 5 days. An absence of a couple of days is not unusual. DrKay (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going by by statistics as per Xtools can I nominate Karlie Kloss's article for GA now that the Prince George article is on hold because of the reviewer's inactivity. Just wanted to confirm it from you, a more experienced user and an administrator, before nominating given I am both the largest author as well as one of the top editors. I do not want to be accused of drive-by again. Looking forward to knowing from you. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, my advice would be to pre-announce your intention to nominate any uncertain cases on the article talk page to give other editors of that page time to comment. DrKay (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At present none of the article's top five authors have edited the page in the last six months except for me. Further, I am also among the top editors to the article. I fixed all the discrepancies in the article. Would leaving a message on the talk page and then nominating do? MSincccc (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see now at GAN that "drive-by" nominations are defined as "if the nominator is either the author of less than 10% of the article or ranked sixth or lower in authorship, and there is no post on the article talk page". DrKay (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so. I am both the highest author as well as attributed with 18.9% of the article at the time of writing. Further, no revisions have been made to the talk page in the last 10 months and as I previously put it the other 4 authors have not edited it recently the most recent by anyone among them being in September 2023. You can verify my claims through XTools as well. In that case, can I go forward with the nomination? I have left a message on the talk page though. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't have a problem you with nominating. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay The reviewer for Prince George of Wales' GA assessment has been inactive on English Wikipedia as a whole for the past three days since taking it up. Furthermore, he has only 1,038 edits attributed to himself despite his account having being created in 2013. This shows that the user is rather inactive. Your previous advice to me was that-I would wait a further 5 days. An absence of a couple of days is not unusual. But given this user's editing pattern and contributions history, should I renominate the article with today's date so that a new reviewer picks it up? I will inform AndrewPeterT if that should be the case. Looking forward to knowing from you. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would wait a week and then follow the process at WP:GAN/I#N4a. DrKay (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay As you know both I and Keivan are among the top five contributors as well as the top two editors to the article William, Prince of Wales and given that, have been considering an FAR for the article in the near future. I recently transcluded a peer review for the article with both our names attached to it. Knowing that you are one of the three FAC coordinators, just wanted to seek your blessings for the entire process. Thanks for your time and advice in recent days. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. DrKay (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How long should a peer review normally last before I close it and nominate the article for the actual FAR? Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is guidance at Wikipedia:Peer review/Guidelines#Step 4: Closing a review from the peer review side. I would recommend waiting for at least one review before nominating at WP:FAC because review at FAC can be intense and a peer review beforehand is recommended. DrKay (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I had let the peer review run for a fortnight or say three weeks and make the suggested changes, if required , before I co-nominate William's article for FAR. Will that do @DrKay? Yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For FAC. Yes, though you could probably close the peer review earlier if you got one thorough review. DrKay (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well would you yourself be leaving a few valuable suggestions at the peer review discussion page? It will be greatly appreciated if it could be possible. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well @DrKay, I was hoping you could advise me on whether the peer review for William's article can be closed at this stage or if I should wait further. I haven't received any comments from other users since Nick D's last remarks. Your advice would be greatly appreciated. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a week since the last comment. DrKay (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should I close it and nominate the article for FAR or should I wait for more comments (hopefully some from you or any of the FAC coordinators as well). Looking forward to knowing from you. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any comments at this stage. I wish you well for the FAC nomination. DrKay (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay Should I interpret this as your approval to close the peer review and proceed with the FAC nomination, or should I extend the peer review for another week? I look forward to hearing from you. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The former. DrKay (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay Would it be possible for me to add a few high-quality sources and cite relevant literature to the article before I nominate it for FAC? If I can accomplish this, I plan to nominate it within the next week or so. I hope you are open to this proposal. Please let me know your thoughts. Regards and thank you for your time. MSincccc (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can make improvements at any time. DrKay (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you happen to have access to this book by John Harvey Pinches ISBN 978-0-900455-25-4? I have looked for it everywhere but it's not available on any of the platforms from which I usually get my books. I thought maybe you had added it as a reference to Philip's article or at least were in possession of it. Looking forward to your response. Keivan.f^Talk 21:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't own a copy. I had access to a library copy some years ago but I no longer live near to that library. Sorry, DrKay (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more question. Given your extensive involvement with the article on Edward VIII, I thought maybe you had come across information regarding his relationship with Rosemary Leveson-Gower. Her article discusses it in detail but there's no mention of her in his article to the best of my knowledge. I thought maybe there was a reason for it and perhaps you were opposed to its inclusion for a specific reason. Wanted to know your opinion before making any changes. Keivan.f^Talk 18:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been added[4] and removed[5] by others. DrKay (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So since the IP did not provide a specific reason for the removal, I guess I'll add it back if you're not opposed to it. Thanks for the prompt response. Keivan.f^Talk 21:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay The user in question has eliminated commas from the introductory sentence in the lead section of numerous biographies featuring individuals from noble backgrounds. This action has been repeated across a significant number of pages, with the edit summary stating "Removed unnecessary comma." Would you be able to address this matter? Please do so at the earliest as the user has disagreed with multiple other users who have tried to advise him. I await your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained why I have been doing this, admittedly not in each article, but I feel as though the point stands. If my edit summaries in this regard are not considered detailed enough, I accept that, but neither is 'Not unnecessary' as a reason for reverting, as that achieves nothing productive. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone can be at fault. Removing commas from the lead of so many articles, some of which are GAs, without considering ongoing discussions is concerning. Let DrKay decide what actions are necessary. Also, be cautious of potential violations of WP:3RR. Consider this a warning, as there is still time to make corrections. I am not against you; rather, you need to adhere to the community and its consensus. Looking forward to your response @DrKay and have a great day ahead @ZeroAlpha87. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your comments, but feel as if there is an underlying problem on Wikipedia of 'well, that's the way it's always been', which is only valid if it was right in the first place. I am happy to debate this, but in the right place; where would that be? So far, I have not seen any, apart from what my actions have led to, talk on this matter; therefore, I am unsure what you mean by 'without considering ongoing discussions'. The manual of style to which I have been referred does not actually address this specific point - that is, commas to 'close off' peerages from names. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my previous comment, I should appreciate it if you were to refer to my talk page, where I have, since my post on here at 11:03, had what I deem to be a positive conversation with another concerned editor, @HandsomeFella, and consider what's on there before deciding anything; it arguably amounts to progress. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions have been, to say the least, disruptive. Furthermore, reverting edits made by other experienced users who attempted to correct your changes only exacerbated the situation, particularly on pages such as those of Prince Harry and Prince Philip. It would have been more prudent to initiate a discussion on the relevant talk page. @DrKay please take up the matter because the same has been done for a large number of articles; the edits were reverted only when such changes were made to the articles of figures like Prince Philip and Princes William and Harry. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you expect a discussion about this on the talk page of *every* article that is affected? If not, where is this 'relevant' talk page? Surely this is about a policy that covers the topic as a whole, not just when it applies to certain pieces. Each time that you have reverted my edits, you have put 'Unnecessary' without explaining why it is unnecessary, an action for which you seem to have admonished me when I put 'Removed unnecessary comma' without giving a rationale. If it comes to it, I shall revert all the 'disruptive' edits myself; therefore, @DrKay, I urge you to consider my willingness to do the right thing before any drastic action is imposed. Indeed, no action should be taken, I should argue, while there is an ongoing discussion, at Talk:William, Prince of Wales, I gather. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you expect a discussion about this on the talk page of *every* article that is affected? If not, where is this 'relevant' talk page? I never meant that. But you should have refrained from reverting edits, especially in articles concerning Philip and Harry, where seeking consensus should have been prioritised after your initial edit was reverted. By persisting with the reverts, you only escalated the disruption. Additionally, the commas you removed in other articles should have remained, as they serve their purpose. It's just that not many are familiar with articles of relatively less importance; otherwise, you would have faced reversions there as well. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion going on presently at Talk:William, Prince of Wales. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I've been offline until now. I think no further commas should be removed until consensus is reached on a talk page. It is disruptive to continue with a series of edits after being asked to stop. DrKay (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No further commas will be removed by me until consensus is reached, I can assure you. I acknowledge the disruptiveness of my edits, not that that was my intention. However, only eventually was I asked to stop reverting them; previously, I had been undoing them when no reason had been provided for their being '[u]nnecessary', as in all that was written in the summary box was '[n]ot unnecessary'. That is just as unhelpful as my '[r]emoved unnecessary comma', as it provides no rationale. In any case, thank you for your fairness, @DrKay. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay: Thanks for editing King Vajiralongkorn's military roles and career in his infobox. When I read his article, I saw that he once served as a career officer in the Royal Thai Army. Therefore, I decided to add a little bit of information about his military career to the infobox. I think, his career as an army officer showed that his military roles are not purely ceremonial. I think your edits were more accurate. Thank you. RyanW1995 (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the website of the Canadian Parliament, the use of the Tudor Crown was after 1880, and there are many pictures and legislative documents using the St Edward's Crown version, so should the article not write the Tudor Crown version of the royal emblem from Used since 1837. 2401:E180:8861:5785:BBA1:A79A:2610:B508 (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

web 2401:E180:8861:5785:BBA1:A79A:2610:B508 (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canada was also under the rule of Queen Victoria at that time, so I think what is said on this website can also be quoted from the Coat of arms of the United Kingdom from 1837 to 1901. 2401:E180:8861:5785:BBA1:A79A:2610:B508 (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

image:File:010 Rideau Hall, residència del Governador General del Canadà (Ottawa), escut i bandera.jpg

File:Kevin MacLeod in Canadian Senate Chamber 2009.jpg

File:St Margaret's church - Victorian royal arms - geograph.org.uk - 1602596.jpg

File:1837

1900

1903 2401:E180:8861:5785:BBA1:A79A:2610:B508 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:All Saints church - Victorian royal arms - geograph.org.uk - 1547467.jpg 2401:E180:8860:2EF8:3709:6B9:2388:1590 (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have noticed a potential contradiction regarding Prince Richard's role within the Royal Auxiliary Air Force (RAuxAF). Here he's described as the colonel-in-chief, while here is referred to as honorary air commodore in chief. Does this mean that he holds both positions together or am I misinterpreting something here? Keivan.f^Talk 23:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I suspect he is honorary air commodore in chief and that colonel-in-chief is a mistake or simplification by the press office. I think we should stick with honorary air commodore in chief on the basis of due weight. DrKay (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay It's been over three weeks since I co-nominated Catherine's article for FAC, but the process has not progressed beyond the Image Review. Furthermore, user Gog the Mild recently posted a coordinator's note on the FAC nomination page, indicating that the nomination could be archived if it does not receive general support from the community in a few days. This is my first time at FAC, and I have worked on the article for a long time. Hence, I am looking forward to your advice. Could you please review the article and leave your suggestions so that it can be addressed? Looking forward to your comments. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eagerly awaiting your response @DrKay. Your suggestions at FAC given your experience will be greatly appreciated. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay I hope I am not bothering you with my recent requests as can be found above. But I believe you can offer me valuable guidance regarding the FAC process. Furthermore, I promise not to expand this thread further with more requests. Just wanted to know your opinion and whether you would proceed with leaving comments at Catherine's FAC. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering if you were considering putting that article up for deletion. It's a clear WP:CONTENTFORK and is poorly sourced. I'm surprised the PROD tag was removed. Keivan.f^Talk 01:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you inserted a relevance tag and believe you may have missed the twofold point of this addition. It is on one count to note the unique relationship between Nepal and the British Commonwealth historically in military matters (see the image of Gurkha soldiers serving in the B.C.O.F. as part of the Indian Army), and secondly following from this to note the continued recruitment of Gurkha soldiers by Commonwealth armed forces, sometimes as veterans from other forces in the Commonwealth.

You are correct to note Nepal is not a Commonwealth country – I am happy to state this explicitly. However, this is about the supporting role that Gurkhas have played in Commonwealth as a whole which is a particular and unique part of Commonwealth/imperial military history that can still be seen today. Hence, as I say, they 'have historically fought alongside British and Commonwealth troops [in the same armed forces].' Kind regards, Will Thorpe (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay I wish to tell you that in lieu of a response I will remove the tag once it has been there for five days. If you wish for it to be raised on the talk page first, I will happily do so whether or not you want to contribute to any discussion there. Kind regards, Will Thorpe (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what consensus? Ustadeditor2011 (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the talk page archives, and then look at the article history.

• Talk:Hyderabad/Archive 6#Infobox Image
• Talk:Hyderabad/Archive 6#Rival photomontages - I thought that in that discussion we had achieved consensus for a change, but then anther editor joined the discussion and demanded no change, and got his/her way.
• Talk:Hyderabad/Archive 6#Infobox images change with new pictures & latest features

One common feature in change-the-montage discussions is that it seems to be normal for one of the images in a proposed changed montage to get deleted as a copyright violation. That is likely to happen to the new image you want in the montage.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - you've removed his legal baronial title on the page Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz.

The first time you removed it you asked for verified sources which were provide from the Debretts, Registry of Scottish Nobility and Scottish Barony Register.

Second time you removed with comment "this should only be done for substantive peers not pretend ones"

I must object to your opinion, it is not a pretend title.

It is a title of Scottish ancient nobility protected in law and the origins predate the current peerage, as before Dukes or Viscounts, there were Barons. And there are also Lord/Earl/Marquis baronial baronage titles, not part of the peerage, but their dignity and nobility is protected in law by the Scottish Parliament 2004 act.

The official body The Convention of The Baronage of Scotland (https://www.scotsbarons.org/) representing scottish barons originally being one of the former Three Estates of Scotland states the correct form followed in pages for scottish barons.

Here are quotes and reference links on the legal position from institutional writers, the court of the Lord Lyon the monarch's representative in Scotland, the Scottish Law Commission Government Website and UK Government Legislation Website and Scottish parliament -- all referring to the NOBLE title of a scottish baron and the noble quality and noble aspects of the barony title:

"1992 legal position, Lord Clyde, Spencer Thomas of Buquhollie v Newell: "A BARONY FALLS INTO A CLASS OF NOBLE"" (PDF). Court of the Lord Lyon.

Lord Stair (Institutions, II.iii.45): "the dignity of a barony; which comprehendeth lordship, earldom, & c. all of which are but more NOBLE titles of a barony"" (PDF). Court of the Lord Lyon. 16 June 2024. Retrieved 16 June 2024.

"Page3. Institutional Writer Bankton: "NOBLE fees, are those which conferred NOBILITY to persons vested in them; these were baronies and regalities; and anciently all nobility, in the modern states proceeded from such fees; thus the title of Baron included Duke, Marquis and Earl, as well as that of Lord. "" (PDF). Court of the Lord Lyon.

"Page 31: "...the owner (can) claim ennoblement by the "nobilitating effect" of the "NOBLE quality" of the feudal title on which the land is held. The title of "Baron of So-and-So" or "Baroness of So-and-So" can be adopted... there is a right to relevant baronial additaments to the coat of arms. Baronial robes can be worn. The baron can, in theory, hold a baron's court, appoint a baron baillie to be judge, and exercise a minor civil and criminal jurisdiction."" (PDF). Scottish Law Commission Government Website.

"page 20 "The discussion paper mentioned, BUT REJECTED, the possibility of allowing the "NOBLE aspects of the barony title" to lapse along with the abolition of the feudal relationship on which the ennoblement of the baron is based. It noted that the abolition of entitlement to the title "baron" was not a necessary part of feudal land reform and might well give rise to justifiable claims for compensation."" (PDF). Scottish Law Commission Government Website.

"Page 9: "Proposition 31(iii) was that : All pertinents of land held on Barony titles, including any rights to salmon fishings and rights in respect of the NOBLE TITLE OF BARON, should continue to be transmissible with the title to the land"" (PDF). Scottish Law Commission Government Website.

"Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, 63 Baronies and other dignities and offices: "nothing in this Act affects the dignity of baron or any other dignity or office (whether or not of feudal origin)" "dignity" includes any quality or precedence associated with, and any heraldic privilege incidental to, a dignity" Dignity means noble quality and use of title as covered in the Scottish Law Commission Report that led to the act". UK Government Legislation Website.

Also see Lyon Court Petition of Maclean of Ardgour for a Birthbrieve by Interlocutor which "Finds and Declares that the Minor Barons of Scotland are, and have both in this Nobiliary Court, and in the Court of Session, been recognised as 'titled' nobility, and that the estait of the Baronage (The Barones Minores) is of the ancient Feudal Nobility of Scotland".

Therefore, your removal of the title in correct form from the page (because of your opinion it's a pretend title) removes the dignity provided for by law. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please kindly consider reverting your changes as it is not a pretend title, it is a title of ancient scottish nobility the dignity of which is protected in law, these ancient titles of feudal origin are very specific to Scotland and are an important part of Scottish culture, many thanks Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. The page reads "He is the current Lord of Abernethy in the Baronage of Scotland", which is supported by four citations. That is sufficient. DrKay (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you refer to baronage titles as 'pretend titles' and choose not to format them in the traditional legal way. Could you share more about your perspective on this? I'm interested in understanding your viewpoint and discussing how we might approach this matter.

The title in question is a UK recognised title of nobility. Specifically, this gentleman's title and coat of arms were officially recognised in letters patent by the Lord Lyon King of Arms, the monarch’s official representative in Scotland.

His legal name, as would be reflected in his passport and all official documents, is Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, Baron of Abernethy — the authorised style for Scottish barons.

I believe refusing to format these titles correctly the legal way does not respect the dignity of this gentleman’s achievement or the rich Scottish history and culture behind these titles provided for by law.

The title 'Baron of Abernethy' should follow his main name. However, in the info box, I suggest we use 'Lord of Abernethy' in the post-nominals field instead of the main name field, out of deference to peers.

It is important to note that this title is clearly not a peer’s title, as it includes the 'of' signifying a baronial title, which does not exist for Baronies or Lordships in the peerage.

Furthermore, as you quite rightly note, there is an explanatory clarification (with references) as footnote to the main paragraph, that this title belongs to the Baronage of Scotland (and not the Peerage of Scotland) "He is the current Lord of Abernethy in the Baronage of Scotland". Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

0 sources + WP:SYNTHESIS = Excluded from wikipedia. DrKay (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I got his name wrong:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Mahfouz+Marei+Binmahfouz%2C+Baron+of+Abernethy

There are many news articles including The Times for example: His Excellency Dr Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, CBE, FRSA, lord and baron of Abernethy https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/cash-for-honours-inquiry-already-has-air-of-a-whitewash-kq7fz7l89

His coat of arms: Mahfouz Marei Binmahfouz, Baron of Abernethy https://armorialregister.com/arms-sco/binmahfouz-mm-arms.html Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the news articles have a tone of sarcasm. Armorial Register is not an official herald. It is a private company. The only official heralds in Britain are the College of Arms and the Lord Lyon. DrKay (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yep, there's negative news for sure because of the cash for honours scandal

also some positive as he's donated lots of money to various charities

you're correct Armorial Register is not a herald it's an International Register of Arms - check the link again it says:

Grant: Entered on the 92nd page of the 74th Volume of the “Public Register of All Arms and Bearings in Scotland” on 25th day of November 2011.

That's reference to the official books of Lord Lyon in Scotland.

See wikipedia article: Public Register of All Arms and Bearings in Scotland Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That only shows that the arms are official. Not that the Lord Lyon uses the style. DrKay (talk) 06:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His title is verified and enrolled in the Scottish Barony Register, Registry of Scots Nobility, listed by Debretts, etc. The custodian of the SBR (I believe is a former solicitor and former keeper of the General Register of Sasines) authenticates a baron's documents to ensure they're legitimate and have right to the title, this it the official although non-statuary register that Lord Lyon references and then makes judgement on if the petitioner is virtuous and deserving to receive arms. Scottish solicitors also reference the SBR as the register for confirming legitimacy of title. The many press articles also confirm his title, but as you imply, press articles can write what they want and acknowledge or not acknowledge a legitimate legal title. As mentioned I do think:

the title 'Baron of Abernethy' should follow his main name. However, in the info box, I suggest we use 'Lord of Abernethy' in the post-nominals field instead of the main name field, out of deference to peers.

I am interested to hear your thoughts on this? Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't address my points. WP:DUE. WP:SYNTHESIS. DrKay (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we not approaching it from a neutral point of view? I'm knowledgable on the subject of nobility titles (I'm a hobby genealogist) but I don't believe I'm violating WP:SYNTHESIS. My understanding is the title is legal and recognised and would be in his passport and official documents, therefore removing it from his name with comment "pretend title" is a violation of WP:DUE. I understand this is your personal opinion and you are an administrator so that adds weight, maybe this should be a consensus discussion, I would welcome a consensus discussion if palatable to you? Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't address my points. Material does not belong on wikipedia unless it is explicitly supported by multiple, reliable, independent secondary sources. Unless there are multiple independent secondary sources using the exact style "His Excellency the Lord of Abernethy" to refer to Mahfouz, and those sources are not sarcastic or contradicted by other sources, then that content does not belong. DrKay (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/cash-for-honours-inquiry-already-has-air-of-a-whitewash-kq7fz7l89

Cash-for-honours inquiry already has air of a whitewash — August 01 2022

His Excellency Dr Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, CBE, FRSA, lord and baron of Abernethy, found himself at the centre of an extraordinary scandal more than a year ago. This newspaper revealed how the Saudi Arabian tycoon had been awarded his title on an undisclosed basis by Prince Charles — now the King — after paying tens of thousands of pounds to fixers and donating £1.5 million to royal charities. Mahfouz wanted to secure British citizenship or residency and had been advised that gathering honorary baubles would help. His money was used for projects including the restoration of homes close to Charles’s heart...

The Times which is probably most reputable newspaper stated his title without sarcasm looks like matter of fact to me. There are many articles like this shall I post them here? Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you cannot recognize sarcasm. DrKay (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that article and none of the articles that I've read state it's a fake name or pretend title as you've been implying, as far as I can see his name with title is stated and is a matter of fact Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay can you provide some guidance or perhaps some assistance for me in the process of improving some articles related to the biographies of British Prime Ministers, particularly Lord Liverpool and the Duke of Portland. The articles lack general direct references and needs expansion on context. Can you elaborate on this goal? It would be helpful if I can get a hand from a professional with a expertise on historical topics: Much thanks and good wishes. Altonydean (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay What is your opinion on this upcoming article ? Will you support its inclusion? You are invited to the discussion at Template talk:William, Prince of Wales#Inclusion criteria for film and television. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion is about the content of the template, not whether to move the draft to article space. DrKay (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is Burke’s Peerage considered a reliable source? I happen to remember a discussion on its reliability but I cannot pinpoint where and when it took place. Thought maybe you had some insight. Keivan.f^Talk 06:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed as reliable for genealogy at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Burke's Peerage. Problems arise when editors try to use it to support remote relationships that are only possible to work out by original research: taking different data from different pages and matching them together in a way not actually done by the directory. DrKay (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to add ancestory. If "Lady" was a problem, just removing lady would have solved it. Chirag (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DrKay, having read both WP:not genealogy and not indiscriminate it makes no reference to adding additional information to ancestry charts which helps viewers understand the ancestry of that particular person which is important to James VI and I as he is a member of the royal and the edit does not necessarily change the article to a large extent. Thank you for your advice about minor edits which I will take into account when editing in future. However I reserve the right to expand ancestry charts as there is no reason not to add useful information which is in itself a key purpose of Wikipedia. Chonky edna 2.1 (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I reserve the right to expand ancestry charts" despite requests from multiple editors not to do so implies that you intend to edit-war against consensus to force your point of view. If you choose to disrupt wikipedia in such a way, you will be blocked from editing. DrKay (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused why the consensus intends to block improvements to existing ancestry charts when the edits are both helpful and not against the editing protocols Chonky edna 2.1 (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polluting articles with trivial irrelevancies is not an improvement. DrKay (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay We have been trying to create and write a new article for Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool that discusses the important events and policies that were implemented during his time in office. This is not a formal or official invitation to edit, as a veteran editor and administrator to join us at the page mention in the topic to generally add content and sources that are much needed to make this page a better article. Hope you would join. Thank you. Altonydean (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you recently tagged me as a "meatpuppet" on Wikipedia. My account is 20-years old. While not a frequent contributor, I have posted on several different subjects, and I wanted to reach out to make it clear that my participation here is driven by genuine interest in these subjects and in contributing to Wikipedia's content and discussions.

I always aim to approach topics with an independent and neutral perspective. If you feel I haven't I'd really appreciate your feedback as to why. It should help me improve my contributions here. Charliez (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. John (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is WP:AN#Is reverting alleged OR from an FA exempt from the 3RR brightline? DeCausa (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrKay,

I wanted to reach out directly to extend an olive branch. I realise things have become a bit heated in the discussions, and that’s not my intention at all. My goal is to contribute positively to Wikipedia, and I truly value the feedback I’ve received from experienced editors like yourself.

I understand we may have differing views on certain topics, but I believe we both share the same aim of improving the quality of content on the site. I hope we can move forward in a more collaborative way, and I’m open to any suggestions on how to work together more effectively.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I look forward to a more constructive dialogue.

Best regards,

Kellycrak88 Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay Could you please take a look at user LaGB16's recent editing behaviour at the articles Catherine, Princess of Wales and List of titles and honours of Catherine, Princess of Wales? It would be appreciated. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The concerned user has seemingly violated WP:3RR and his edits suggest a disruptive pattern. Please look into this as soon as possible. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, @DrKay, despite your warning to the concerned editor he has continued with his disruptive behaviour and again added the Arms section in the main article contrary to what was agreed upon. He has neither started any discussion on the Talk page nor has he left any edit summary justifying his actions. Please look into it soon. Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've also reverted four times in less than 24 hours on Catherine, Princess of Wales. I know they've also reverted 4 times in less than 24 hours, but they might not realise that the first edit is a revert ( of an edit performed months ago). DrKay (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that but by reverting, I only wanted to ensure that a GA class article which is being prepared for FAC is not unnecessarily disrupted. Furthermore, the editor did not leave any edit summaries not did he take it to talk. He made another revert earlier today despite your message on his talk page.

@DrKay In such a situation, could you please advise me as to what should be done in the event of him reverting my edits again without an edit summary and without taking it to Talk? Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without reverting the edit, you should post a discussion on the talk page about whether the arms should be on the main article or the list of honors. I would advise waiting an absolute minimum of 24 hours to see whether there is any response or action by others. 08:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@DrKay Furthermore, if the concerned user continues with his/her disruptive edits (without referring to the discussion on the talk page and leaving an edit summary), would you notify other administrators about it or are you going to keep a check? Looking forward to your response. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think in your haste, you skimmed over the contradictions I pointed out in the article. Please take a relook at the source, and read its text. Thehazardcat (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay Thanks for the reversion of the second edit of "Cerebellum" by RealAllied. I'm not an expert. So I wasn't certain that I should revert it.

This new user just appeared today apparently. They also seem to have added something nonsensical about a "cushion" to the "Arachnoid mater" page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arachnoid_mater&diff=prev&oldid=1246646375

I don't know if that is rubbish or not. I suspect that you might know more about it. Could you revert it if it is nonsense? Alan U. Kennington (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I just realised you reverted it already. Cheers. Alan U. Kennington (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the oldest living member of the British royal family is Edward, not Alexandra, right? I'm asking because I would like to add this information to the article, but I did it wrong earlier and you reverted my edit. IgnacyPL (talk) 09:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. It was added to the relevant article two years ago.[6]. DrKay (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While Queen Camilla would, in a heraldic sense, have a banner of her coat of arms, this is not the case. In these photos on these links, [7], [8], and [9] (you ought to see user jared's comment on the final link on Reddit). The standard of Queen Camilla is so little reported on because Royal Standards usually are only thought about by general people and media for royal funerals, state occasions, etc. where the royal standard is prominent. However, Queen Camilla rarely uses a standard. I also noticed that she used the ermine version on the state car for the Service of Thanksgiving for Constantine II.
I find that there is no legitimate source for the standard of Camilla, but based on photography etc.. It seems she doesn't use a banner with her Arms.
Thank you..
SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Kay--

I sent an email to the College of Arms yesterday and received a reply from James Piell, F.S.A, Bluemantle Pursuviant to which he replied with the following:

"Thank you for your enquiry to His Majesty's College of Arms, which has come to me as the Officer in Waiting for the week.

As I understand it, The Queen uses a standard of the Royal Arms with an ermine border. It is expected that this will change at some point in the future.

Yours sincerely

James Peill"

That settles it.

Thank you, again.

SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Kay--

An image of the full email is sent below. (The image can be licensed freely as it contains basic text, and a file under a Creative Commons license uploaded to Wikipedia) I'm really not sure if this makes a difference, but it makes it way more authentic.
File:Email from the Bluemantle Pursuviant.png
Thank you..
SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi DrKay! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I don't mean to embarrass you, but I just wanted to say to wipe the lipstick off your teeth!
x
SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are like so much like a child. You are always whining, pouting, and getting things your way. You failed to revert the WRONG EDIT, like a normal editor, failed to accept that my edit was correct, and are trying to get me banned by using these reporting tactics that makes you want reactions out of me. No, I don't have to listen to you. I don't have to look at you, speak to you, do anything to you. But I am, because I am right. You are wrong. You think that the Standard is just a small ordeal that nobody looks at? But you want consensus for FACTS. You want consensus for FACTS. Stand up. Get off your lazy, bored, smelly bottom and go hop in the shower. I mean, it's really not that hard to research facts and add in the real things.. I'm actually doing what Wikipedia wants me to do. It's weird, odd, and unknown contradictions that people like you make based on random, unsourced, alleged "facts", just to stop your friends and yourself from being deemed wrong. Like who even are you? Who ARE YOU. WHO ARE YOU?! Let me tell you this: My lipstick is on correctly, I am logical human being I am doing what Wikipedia wants me to do. I mean, anyone would pick me as an editor over you. You are just so privileged because you get to play the age card and the experience card (both of which are really embarrassing). Like, who are you to even sit. The point of you I am seeing you as is some middle-aged, white dude from god knows where, sitting on a stained office chair in your mother's basement sitting and snooping around Wikipedia every waking hour of the day. You probably live off soda and candy, among the chips you binge-ate for hours before.
You are just some khia who is jealous of me.
LAST WORD, weirdo!...
SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you really not see that this and your other posts here are prima facie evidence of harassment? DrKay (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DrKay wipe that lipstick off your mouth Drkay Talented Mr. Ripley22 (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I defer to your expertise. However, the original photo description stated that the two brooches she is wearing indicate that the photo was taken shortly after the coronation. That may have been incorrect, but it sounded convincing. I'll keep my hands off of royalty in the future. Sammyjava (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Greetings @DrKay. I just wanted you to tell me whether the following image is properly licensed or not. File:Catherine, Princess of Wales (2024) (cropped).jpg

Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear to be, yes. DrKay (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Asevolit should be blocked. Obvious block evasion at Principality of Sealand. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Less obvious, but probably another WP:SPA vandal: User:Abhycool 0-3. New user, two edits, both on Sealand. First introduced a subtle error (incorrect year). Second looked like innocuous copyediting, but broke grammar. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on it. DrKay (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay Could you kindly review the activities of the user Luke.plaisted? The account has made a few disruptive edits and may potentially continue to do so. Best regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too little to go on at the moment. Continue to warn if the disruption continues. DrKay (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a veteran editor your behaviour in the edits to the above article is really poor. Rejecting a point on grounds that shift with every edit seems to me a pretty clear indication of poor editing behaviour. Jumping immediately into edit warring without first discussing it with me on a talk page, again, not good practice. Finally saying 'as I said, this is sufficient detail for this article' comes very close to claiming ownership of an article. I'd take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content and remind yourself of its contents.

To put my point of view succinctly, the text as is on the page doesn't make it clear that trade with America was not an all-Spain affair. Given the article is about Mary I, this should be made in such a way as to allow readers to learn this, without going into extraneous detail. As it is the text is factually incorrect. Ecrm87 (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You edit-warred against established consensus in an attempt to impose a personal view that was unsupported by the sources and that was an unnecessary and tangential digression. At no point did you open a discussion, presumably because you were unable to justify your original research or the relevance of the content to a biography of Mary I. Your claim of ownership is as valid, or more valid, when directed at yourself. Since your behavior was the same as or worse than mine, posting a complaint here has little to no potency. DrKay (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I sourced my assertion correctly, if you had bothered to read the article I cited it clearly states that the Crown of Castile held a monopoly on trade with Spanish America. If carefully refining the point to be more accurate is 'tangential' then clearly the whole point has no relevance and should be removed entirely by your logic. When you say 'at no point did you open a discussion' what do you imagine I am doing here? Ecrm87 (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article in full. At no point is Mary mentioned. Obviously I meant at no point during the edit war did you open a discussion. Being disingenuous also does you no favors. DrKay (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to mention the subject of an article when sourcing a statement about a particular point. Yes the point is tangential, but as the article currently reads it is inaccurately tangential and that is on you. There is no consensus on including inaccurate information on wikipedia. I opened a discussion because I clearly don't regard the disagreement as over, but edit warring is not good behaviour and therefore I stopped trying to make changes and attempted to engage. Adding labels against evidence does you no favours. Ecrm87 (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]