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 thisanonymous 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 itsMeta page and view itsprivacy 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 thinkUser:Asevolit should be blocked. Obvious block evasion atPrincipality of Sealand. Thanks! —Chrisahn (talk)17:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Less obvious, but probably anotherWP: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 atWikipedia: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]

I noticed you redirected the page E.P. Ranch to E. P. Ranch. While this is correct stylistically, the name never used a space between the first period and the P, as would be the case in writing or in typical initials. (See the book Prince Charming Goes West for examples.) I would like to move the page back to the original. Please let me know if you have any concerns.Tsc9i8 (talk)19:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia house style is to use spaces after periods.DrKay (talk)20:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		When he took up his hat to go, he gave one long look round the library. Then he turned ... (and Saxon took advantage of this to wag his way in and join the party), and said, "It's a rare privilege, the free entry of a book chamber like this. I'm hoping ... that you are not insensible of it." (Text on page 17 illustrated in thefrontispiece inJuliana Horatia Ewing'sMary's Meadow and Other Tales of Fields and Flowers, illustrated byMary Wheelhouse, London: G. Bell and Sons, 1915.) Fowler&fowler«Talk»04:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a joyous festive season!MSincccc (talk)18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a wonderful holiday season!Векочел (talk)17:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello DrKay, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on thisseasonal occasion. Spread theWikiLove by wishing another user aMerry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk)22:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk)22:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to thisedit here, most sources say it is "Keep out, shut up!" (in morse code "DDD" or "stop transmitting") - a very common way for wireless operators to talk - which was transmitted fromTitanic.Omnis Scientia (talk)17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get 4 gbooks hits for "Keep out! Shut up! I'm working Cape Race." and 37 gbooks hits for "Shut up! Shut up! I'm working Cape Race.", indicating that the latter is commoner in reliable sources.DrKay (talk)19:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the two most reliable books -A Night to Remember andOn a Sea of Glass - and the dialogue from the inquiries say otherwise. This one is from Cyril Evans, the telegraphist of theCalifornian, himself:[1] In this case, I'm going with the direct source and most sources I know of. Respectfully, most books on the matter are... um... not good, let's say.Omnis Scientia (talk)19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just looked at bothA Night to Remember (2012 Penguin edition available on google books[2]) andOn a Sea of Glass (2013 Amberley edition available on google books[3]). They both say "Shut up! Shut up! I am working Cape Race.' The quote is not given on the Titanic testimony web page.DrKay (talk)07:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I have the older version so they may have changed it. That said, there are different versions of the same quote. Some have "keep out", some have "I am busy", some erronously claim Evans was angry.

However, please do check the testimony again. The exact quote is: "They said 'Keep out.'" - if anything the rest of it is not mentioned except for "keep out." I guess we can remove the quote entirely given how different they are. And the morse code sent for this was just "DDD" and nothing dramatic as that.Omnis Scientia (talk)08:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewrote the paragraph and added some further context. As it were, there are versions of "Keep out!" in books but with different wordings from "Keep out shut up, I'm working Cape Race." There are versions of "I'm busy!" or "I'm busy working Cape Race!" and so on. Instead of that quote, which is out of context, I wrote down the basic jist of what happened per the testimony of operator Cyril Evans of theCalifornian. I think its now more informative than just that oft-misunderstood quote.Omnis Scientia (talk)15:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your redirection is not correct.Polydendri is located in East Attica, while the forest is inLarissa.https://www.larissa-beach.gr/en/larissa-beach/sights/forest-of-polydendriLord Mountbutter (talk)03:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thenalady:: in relation to[4], see above.DrKay (talk)06:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Jean Mercier. If it's because of an edit war, then my block should be temporary, not permanent or indefinite. Well, it's almost the same thing. Right now I feel offended by the evil that all of those people, including that Finn, did to me. They think they own Wikipedia and thus abuse their power and mistreat people.2800:484:738F:15F0:25C0:47EF:549A:C1F1 (talk)18:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DrKay. Quaerens-veritatem here. I have two questions with which I believe you can help me concerningMaureen O'Hara.

First, regarding your Revision as of 07:13, 9 January 2025,here, I placed at the end of the article

==Filmography==

because I think many readers, after reading the lead and Early life, skip the specifics of the roles played, and scroll down to Personal life and to Filmography that is often at the end of actors' articles. Is there a reason the Filmography link can't be repeated there?

Second, regarding your Revision as of 07:18, 9 January 2025,here, I usedalcohol use disorder because, underalcoholism it reads, "...alcoholism andalcoholic are sometimes considered stigmatizing and to discourage seeking treatment, so diagnostic terms such asalcohol use disorder oralcohol dependence are often used instead in a clinical context." As noted in the alcoholism article, "The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated there were 283 million people withalcohol use disorders worldwide as of 2016." (emphasis supplied) For those not familiar with the term, the piped link goes toalcoholism withalcohol use disorder in the lead. Since doctors, WHO, et al. consider alcoholism a health problem and use the less stigmatizing term alcohol use disorder, I thought the less stigmatizing term should be put out there. What do you think?

Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts. Kind regards,Quaerens-veritatem (talk)08:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that an article should repeat a section hatnote or contain an extremely short section consisting solely of a hatnote. I am reluctant to apply a label, especially a diagnostic label, to someone who is not given that label in reliable sources.DrKay (talk)10:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understand. At least alcohol use disorder is in the link. Hopefully it will be used more often, not just by the medical profession. As to No.2, 205.239.40.3 actually had a better idea than mine, putting it in the Infobox under 'works'here.Quaerens-veritatem (talk)21:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay Could you please let me know whenthis discussion on a requested page move can be closed? Regards.MSincccc (talk)10:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves usually last 7 days.DrKay (talk)18:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DrKay, I noticed you undid my revision because it may have been a little extensive (fair). I acknowledge the fact that it is not about the Medranos, and is indeed a page on Philip II. However, the reason I decided to add that small section to Philip's page is because it adds 4 more years to his early life, documenting his travels as a young prince; it just so happens he was accompanied by a Medrano, his chief equerry. I wonder if this could be refined so that it stays directly relevant to Philip. I believe a small note on the princes journey with Diego to Italy in 1548 is appropriate here. What do you think?The Royal Herald (talk)13:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. Thanks.DrKay (talk)13:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, a small section on his journeys to Italy in November 1548 has been refined and included.The Royal Herald (talk)14:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I’m just wondering the state ofPrincess Elisabeth of Hesse and by Rhine article I just very recently made tons of improvements to the article will it be enough to be GA or FA?Qubacubazamniauser (talk)17:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articleLeka, Prince of Albania (disambiguation) has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may bedeleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)09:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said that my last edit which was on adding Republic of Sudan violated the rules. I did not really understand how. If you can please point the mistake I made.31.148.1.86 (talk)07:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you, multiple times. The sources do not support the additions. The last one explicitly says that Sudan is *not* a totalitarian regime.DrKay (talk)07:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you also have deleted Equatorial Guinea under Theodoro Nguema. I know Wikipedia cannot be used as a source and it is said it is totalitarian currently on wikipeia page so I think it is correct to either bring it back or to change it to authoritarian on its page on Wikipedia.31.148.1.86 (talk)08:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions toNova Flow Boyz (group). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time becauseit needs more sources to establish notability.I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information atHelp:Unreviewed new page.When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back.Mekomo (talk)05:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay I have never harboured any ill feelings towards any user in the past, nor will I in the future. Yet, when I started a discussion on ANI to resolve a misunderstanding between me and two other users, it was closed on the grounds that I was harassing them, whereas all I did was ask a few minor queries which the user got irritated with. In reality, I had only made two requests on their talk pages after being asked not to post there without a satisfactory reason.I have no ill intentions towards anyone, yet I am being treated unfairly. I seek to avoid future correspondence with the concerned users on their talk pages, but how do I go about navigating this? Regards.MSincccc (talk)05:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think all you can do is not post to their user talk pages again, or ping them to any discussions. Sorry.DrKay (talk)19:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay But is it not unjust? I did nothing to cause such a situation.Velworth (talk)04:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the situation has occurred. Sometimes people fall out with us for no reason that we can see. I've learned to shrug it off.DrKay (talk)08:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better ifTemplate:Editnotices/Page/Jack the Ripper is created so that it is visible to everyone. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔)02:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the edit summary, editnotices are not visible to everyone.DrKay (talk)07:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Morning DrKay

Thanks for your closure at the above article. I'm somewhat disappointed that on reviewinf reviewing reviewing you didn't find consensus fir "Chorten Arena" - I think the evidence was clear that that's the most common name in English, and nobody refuted that point.

However, on a more significant point I firmly disagree with your decision thatBiałystok City Stadium is the default stable title for the article. It was moved away from that name in 2020, and remained atStadion Miejski (Białystok) for four years - which is clearly longer than the usual timeframe for which we consider a title to have become stable - until the recent flurry of moves began last year. The first move away fromStadion Miejski (Białystok) was reverted as an undiscussed move , and all subsequent RMs have assumed that as the status quo title. Given your no consensus close , the article must remain atStadion Miejski (Białystok), which is the longterm stable title by any reasonable definition. Please could you revisit the close and revert back to that? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk)10:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence from google searches is not that clear. The figures quoted by FromCzech (47,000 compared to 20,000) are not backed up by url links in the discussion, and when one does those searchesthere are 29,000 ghits for Białystok City Stadium and12,000 for Chorten Arena. If one scrolls through those links to the end, the numbers are reduced to124 for Białystok City Stadium versus89 for Chorten Arena.

I also do not agree that Stadion Miejski (Białystok) is the long term stable title. If it was it wouldn't have oscillated between that and other titles 12 times in the last 12 months.DrKay (talk)11:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that last argument doesn't stack up at all. The recent moves are a result of firstly a bold undiscussed move that was reverted perWP:RMUM, followed by an attempt to move war by the same user, and then a series of closures which were later reversed. None of that takes away from the fact that the clear and unambiguous stable title is Stadion Miejski (Bialystok). I'll take it to Move Review if I have to, but I'd urge you please one more time to reconsider to avoid that - as an experienced page mover myself, I don't think there's anyone who will agree with your determination that a page title stable for four years until a tecent move war and subsequent RM is anything other than the default stable title. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk)11:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to undo my close. After three requested moves and two undone closures, it's time to draw the discussion to a close.DrKay (talk)11:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How isthis an appropriate close? Not a single person brought up or voted for a lowercased "tri-state" in the nominaton, the proposals were "Tri-state tornado of 1925", "1925 Tri-State tornado" and "Great Tri-State Tornado"; neither did anybody vote for a "1925 tri-state tornado". — E_F⁵15:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"On lower/upper case, there is a 5:3 majority for lower case and I find the arguments to retain upper case have been opposed by counter-argument, supporting evidence and reference to the manual of style. Other issues, such as the word order, were raised but I don't see clear consensus or argument in favor of one or other. Both forms ("1925 tornado" and "tornado of 1925") are natural and idiomatic. I am closing this requested move with the minimal change of upper case to lower case with no prejudice against the opening of a new requested move to discuss word order".DrKay (talk)15:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already read the closing statement, the lowercase proposal was for "Tri-state", not "tri-state". Cinderella157'sTri-state tornado of 1925 was the proposal with the most support. — E_F⁵15:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you support that, then suggest "opening of a new requested move to discuss word order".DrKay (talk)15:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. — E_F⁵15:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reaching out to ask why you reverted my addition to the Frederick VI of Denmark page. It was a good faith edit, and was made to add more information to a slightly vague section, as well as merge a section that is better suited elsewhere on the page. What needs to be readjusted and/or added so it is satisfactory? I'm assuming it was due to me forgetting to add/readd the citations, but I just want to be sure before I attempt any fixes again.

ZHopster23 (talk)13:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reverted because sourced content was removed and replaced with unsourced content.DrKay (talk)13:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother § New lead image.Rexophile (talk)22:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay Hi, I movedNia (charity) toNia (organization) my move was redirected by creator of the page. I'd like to ask where I should request the page to move back toThe Nia Project orNia (organization). As mostly reliable references gave coverage toThe Nia Project not to any Nia (charity) includingThe Guardian,TIME and also in references number [2][3][4][5][9] project name is clearly mentioned asThe Nia Project. Is this a controversial or uncontroversial move? and where I can request the appropriate move.𝐌P⚚𝛂n 𓃠 {✝alk}20:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the process atWikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move.DrKay (talk)22:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr. Kay,

I saw a post on LinkedIn and was part of an effort by one of the boards I participate on to create Wikipedia pages for women computer scientists. I am interested in creating a web page for the woman who posted the article, Jessica "STING" Peterson. The LinkedIn post is here:https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7304511020876603392/. There are a number of articles that she mentions in her post, and I'm confident that I can pull up additional info from the Wayback Machine. I'm free today to get her page started, can you help?Pattylopez (talk)21:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of them are blatantly offensive and deserves full deletion. --Least Action (talk)14:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay Hello Tishreen07 came back but CU result came out '''possible''' they are 100% Tishreen07 I have also added evidence after CU result can you please review the investigation?Kajmer05 (talk)15:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're well. Recently, an administrator, whose nominations I’ve reviewed at FAC and GAN, explicitly asked me to refrain from further interaction, which I have agreed to. However, after I fixed a broken link in a conversation, the user reverted with the edit summary: "don’t fucking edit other peoples' comments? especially the comment of someone who has told you to leave them alone??". I wish to cease interaction with this user, but this was unnecessarily rude. Regards.MSincccc (talk)06:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously. However, we don't know what's going on in her life and for all we know she may be coping with a difficult situation elsewhere. Also, given that it took an hour and a half to correct the diff, I suspect she was unaware that the original diff was broken and thought you were editing her comment unnecessarily, which is deprecated. I recommend ignoring a single out-of-character breach of temper.DrKay (talk)17:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) DrKay, if you dopn't mind a second opinion, as it were, it's not that black and white. While many of us respect MSincccc's eagerness and even devotion to our review processes, there are other factors at play here. You should know, for instance, that MSincccc wasrecently blocked] byElli forWP:STALKING another editor. This followed their ownAN/I filing which—per the closer—almostWP:BOOMERANGed back on to them, as it was established that although perWP:NOBAN, they were not to post on an editor's talk page, they had continued doing so. WhenPremeditated Chaos barked at them in that edit summary, this only after she had repeatedly asked themnot to review her articles. So what we really hgave here is an editor with a proven track record of continuing to interract with editors even after beng requested them not to do so, and continuing recidivism following a block for the same. If there's a problkem here, it's not with PMC's brusque edit summary. FWIW, I also think it ill behoves us to speculate on other editors' states of mind. Cheers,Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi11:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just thought I'd let you know that your PROD on this article has been declined by an IP editor. Thank you.JeffSpaceman (talk)22:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you peace, joy, and renewal this Easter season.Thank you for all you do to keep Wikipedia growing and thriving.

Stay well, and happy editing!MSincccc (talk)18:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To Drkay,

The royal title "Phrabat Somdet Phra Boromchanok Adhipeshraakathibet Maha Bhumibol Adulyadej Maharat Boromanatbophit" (พระบาทสมเด็จพระบรมชนกาธิเบศร มหาภูมิพลอดุลยเดชมหาราช บรมนาถบพิตร) was posthumously bestowed upon King Rama IX, in accordance with Thai tradition where monarchs receive elaborate ceremonial names—composed exclusively in sacred Pali and Sanskrit—to honor their legacy. This is now the official title used by the Royal Thai government.

During his reign, his full formal and regnal title was "Phrabat Somdet Phra Poraminthra Maha Bhumibol Adulyadej Mahitalathibet Ramathibodi Chakri Naribodin Sayamintharathirat Boromanatbophit" (พระบาทสมเด็จพระปรมินทรมหาภูมิพลอดุลยเดช มหิตลาธิเบศรามาธิบดี จักรีนฤบดินทร สยามมินทราธิราช บรมนาถบพิตร), as recorded in Thailand’s Royal Gazette (www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th orhttps://workpointtoday.com/%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%8A%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%88%E0%B8%88%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%AF-%E0%B8%9B%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A8%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%89%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%A3/). Unfortunately, detailed explanations of these titles are rarely available in English.

Today, Thai government agencies routinely use the posthumous title "Phrabat Somdet Phra Boromchanok Adhipeshraakathibet Maha Bhumibol Adulyadej Maharat Boromanatbophit" in official contexts. However, diplomatic and international communications still prefer "His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej the Great" to avoid confusion with his pre-posthumous titles.

Another complexity lies in pronunciation: While these titles derive from Pali/Sanskrit, Thai transliteration often diverges from Indian linguistic norms. For example:

- Adhipeshara becomes Athibet in Thai.

- Paramarajadhiraj is transcribed as Borommarachathirat under the Royal Thai General System of Transcription.

- Bhumibol (from Bhumibala in Sanskrit and Pali) is pronounced Phumiphon in Thai, yet the original Bhumibala is preserved in spelling, with -bala adjusted to -bol in Thai pronunciation.

As a new Wikipedia editor, I’m still refining my skills—please forgive any inadvertent errors in my approach.Victoria the Victorious (talk)16:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be saying it is a title. The parameter isname. The template documentation makes clear this means "non-titular name", i.e. personal name without titles, style or epithets.DrKay (talk)19:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Thai tradition, it is both:

1. The full official name of the Thai monarch, and

2. A royal title simultaneously.

The prefix "Phrabat Somdet Phra" (พระบาทสมเด็จพระ) can be loosely compared to "His Majesty the King" in English. However, unlike European royal titles—which list territories (e.g., "Francis Joseph I, by the Grace of God, Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia...")—every word after "Phrabat Somdet Phra" in Thai is part of the king’s official full name, as used in all government documents.

The long formulation you see is not a list of honors or dominions, but the complete regnal name. For context:The name inscribed on the golden plaque during the coronation ceremony is even longer.

Posthumous names are often more elaborate than those used during reign (e.g., King Rama IX’s posthumous title replaces his living-era name in official use).

This is unique to Thai tradition:After death, kings may receive a new, more honorific name (as with Rama IX).

The posthumous name supersedes the reign-era name in public and bureaucratic usage.Thus, "Phrabat Somdet Phra Boromchanok Adhipeshraakathibet Maha Bhumibol Adulyadej Maharat Boromanatbophit" both his legal name and title—just as "Elizabeth II", "Charles III", or "George I."Victoria the Victorious (talk)01:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 April 2025, you blocked users Oos88 (31 hours) and indef'd Peterpumpkineater919 & Consuela9890, however I don't find them in SPI. New user Yepie3726 (created 06:47, 24 April 2025) has popped up and jumped right in to edit the same cluster of Portugal-topic articles; one of which is on my watchlist. Verified with the Interaction Timeline tool. Likely a new sock.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀23:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason you removed the religion parameter from King Felipe's infobox? It is listed for the other currently reigning European monarchs. AlsoTemplate:Infobox royalty states thatDespite an RFC that generally forbids religion in "person" infoboxes, because religion is a relevant characteristic of many monarchs, religion may be listed if relevant, sourced and uncontroversial.Векочел (talk)16:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as detailed in the edit summary. British monarchs, etc. are different because they are religious leaders.DrKay (talk)18:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oh, and by the way,I wrote those words.DrKay (talk)18:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you reverted the citation that I had added toMary I of England. Because you are a very experienced editor there must be a reason for it, and I could learn something asking you. Could you please explain?--Gciriani (talk)13:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PerWP:CITELEAD, cites are not necessary in the article lead, when the content is cited elsewhere in the article.DrKay (talk)13:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thank you so much!--Gciriani (talk)16:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two identical edits were made to the article byUser:51.187.75.53, both adding: "His height is currently unknown."MSincccc (talk)10:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you kindly let me know whether page protection might be considered for the article, as has been done for both of Louis’s siblings—both of which, along with Louis’s, are now good articles? I look forward to your response. Kind regards.MSincccc (talk)16:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DrKay,
I noticed you reverted my edit on the page for the sinking ofTitanic, citing an "incomplete citation." Could I ask what was incomplete about it?PhoenixCaelestis (Talk ·Contributions)18:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to verify the addition because there was no page number.DrKay (talk)19:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I'll add that now.PhoenixCaelestis (Talk ·Contributions)20:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed you reverted an edit made onPrince Harry, Duke of Sussex[5]. I made the same edit that you reverted before I checked the page history, and am curious if there's a reason why you made the revert you did. Events should follow a chronological order, and I don't see any consensus to the contrary on the article talk page.Horse.staple (talk)06:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about. You appear to have confused me with someone else.DrKay (talk)07:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the edit you made on 19 May at 16:41 UTC, here[6]. In it you edited the article to reflect a previous version, and I am curious if there is a reason why that I didn't see.Horse.staple (talk)07:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still have no clue. I removed one word from the first sentence of the lead[7]. I made no edits to the drug use section nor did I move any paragraphs.DrKay (talk)07:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering why is there - at the moment - no reference at all toPrince Harry's recent BBC interview regarding his family and security? Can you please asisst?https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8074n5z597o49.199.153.94 (talk)11:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please run it by me (once again?) why you dothese random deletions though the articles on all the persons mentions clearly source the ancestral info realiably. I'm still confused as to why you do that in such cases.SergeWoodzing (talk)21:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no sources there.DrKay (talk)06:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How could you missthis, just as one example? --SergeWoodzing (talk)13:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, we don't accept self-published blogs as sources, but even so, it doesn't support the content of the table.DrKay (talk)13:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to address the issue of the succession ofIsabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil. The sources I cited in the articlePedro de Alcântara, Prince of Grão-Pará, mainly Philippe de Montjouvent's book,Le Comte de Paris et sa Descendance, mentions on page 151 that although Princess Isabel accepted Prince Pedro's resignation as did the majority of Brazilian monarchists and the Monarchical Directory in Brazil, this acceptance was not unanimous and many still recognized D. Pedro as Isabel's legitimate successor, even though he did not actively claim this position. However, he himself questions the validity of his resignation in 1936 as pointed out in the bookTout m'est bonheur by theCountess of Paris, page 445. Additionally, inJosé Murilo de Carvalho's bookD. Pedro II. p. 236, he mentions that after the announcement of D. Pedro's resignation to the monarchists of the Monarchical Directory,Domingos de Andrade Figueira andCarlos de Laet abandoned the Directory because they disagreed with the validity of the resignation and continued to recognize Prince Pedro as heir to the Headship of the Imperial House of Brazil.

Therefore, I did not revert your reversion of my edit, but I think it should be maintained. After all, the dispute over legitimacy and succession between the branches of Vassouras and Petrópolis began because of the resignation of D. Pedro de Alcântara, and if his successors (and those who support them) recognize themselves as legal successors of Isabel, they do the same in relation to D. Pedro.

Von Burgundy (talk)02:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to cite this in the articles. I reverted because it was not cited.DrKay (talk)07:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I failed to cite it in Isabel's, but I did on Prince Pedro's. But I cited the sources (mainly books) and the pages on which they were presented without providing an citation. Should I do otherwise?Von Burgundy (talk)15:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nearly all content should be cited. SeeWikipedia:Verifiability andWikipedia:No original research for guidance.DrKay (talk)15:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articleList of official overseas trips made by William, Prince of Wales, and Catherine, Princess of Wales was split yesterday into two separate lists. The articleList of official overseas trips made by Catherine, Princess of Wales was created by copy-pasting text (including sources) from the original. At present, User:AndrewPeterT holds 99.9% authorship on the new article.

Could this be looked into and possibly corrected, so that proper attribution is restored?MSincccc (talk)00:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary on the first edit is sufficient for attribution purposes.DrKay (talk)07:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recently dropped the imageFile:Troopingthecolour2023 (cropped, Catherine and William).jpg from the articleCatherine, Princess of Wales. It has beennominated for deletion for quite sometime due to potential copyright violations. Did I do the right thing?MSincccc (talk)17:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy adminship anniversary! Hi DrKay! On behalf of theBirthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of yoursuccessful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day!DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk)03:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I took a look at thediscussion about the article Pedro Carlos of Orléans-Braganza and I mostly disagree with the arguments presented, which seem biased to me. I would like to know how and where I can reopen this discussion so that the article can be rewritten and with new sources (which I provided, by the way).

I don't know if I should argue here, but in case it's useful: the mere previous existence of the article and the discussion about whether or not it is relevant due to its connection to the former Brazilian monarchy are proof that the topic of the article is, in fact, relevant. After all, it's been almost 140 years since the fall of the Brazilian monarchy, and its heirs are still being discussed. The argument that initiated the deletion process seems to me to be entirely based on the fact that the republic is well established in Brazil and the monarchist movement is weak, but I don't see how that is relevant to the topic of the article, whose purpose is ultimately to inform. Furthermore, I disagree that a person cited in so many international and mainstream newspapers such asThe New York Times,ABC,Estadão,G1,El País, etc., and who lives in an old imperial palace in the middle of the Brazilian republic, is so totally irrelevant that he doesn't deserve an article.

And as I mentioned, based on the arguments for deletion, such as the lack of sources that are directly about the person in the topic, in this case Pedro Carlos of Orléans-Braganza, I took care to add new sources specifically about him and that are reliable, for example:

• ^[1] This one fromVanity Fair about his marriage.
• ^[2] This one fromPoint de Vue about the dispute for the headship of theHouse of Orléans-Braganza.
• ^[3] This one had already been mentioned in the pre-deletion article and used in the argument for deletion as "it's about the sales of historical objects that Pedro Carlos made", and it's true. What the argument tries to expose is that it's from a mainstream Brazilian newspaper,O Globo, which calls him "Dom (D.)", which is an honorific, recognizes him as a member of the imperial family (extinct or not) and says that he lived in theformer imperial palace of Grão-Pará. Three points that, together, make the topic of the article, the person of Pedro Carlos, worthy of note, at the very least.
• ^[4] Finally, this source was already mentioned and the argument for deletion goes as "Prince Pedro Carlos visited a museum". This clearly demonstrates his notability, since there would be no news, or even an article, about a visit by a non-notable person to a museum in the official media of the city of Juiz de Fora. It is worth remembering that Pedro Carlos is not a historian or museologist, so his notability comes from his ancestry and this does indeed confer notability on the individual.Von Burgundy (talk)15:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can take it toWikipedia:Deletion review.DrKay (talk)15:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, just did it and am notifying you as commanded.Von Burgundy (talk)15:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, so I did as you said and the discussion is well-developed now with many endorsements (from what I understood) for the re-creation of the article. So what should I do? Wait for some discussion closing (is there a deadline or something), re-create the article?Von Burgundy (talk)15:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait for the discussion to close or for the consensus to become crystal clear. There will be no need to re-create it if the result is for restoration, becauseyour article has already been partially restored for the discussion and will be fully restored when or if necessary.DrKay (talk)16:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert the edits I made, NOW!Spectra321578 (talk)17:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This edit was different in that unlike the last time there was no copyright violation and far more was added to the article. One of the editors the last time thought that the article had potential but was not good enough at the time. I was not aware of the copyright violation rules at the time. It was not a copy of the deleted article as a lot was different about it.Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk)20:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, I've changed the name of the section to 'Expansion and renewed interest' to assuage the reasoning for yourreversion of my edit. This, I think, goes well with 'Adoption and formalisation' and 'Decolonisation and self-governance'. Cheers,Will Thorpe (talk)06:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wroteUser:TenPoundHammer/ROT13 for a brief essay on what I call the "ROT13 precedent": namely, that the FAR process can be accelerated if the article is deemed sufficiently substandard. Do you know of any similar accelerated de-listings prior to ROT13, or any other times where this precedent was invoked? Also, do you think it's ready to move to Wikipedia: namespace likeWP:HAMMER andWP:NOTTVTROPES?Ten Pound Hammer •^{(What did I screw up now?)}17:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I wouldn't include Alpha Kappa Alpha because there is 2 weeks for each stage. The only other times I know of are when the article is already redirected or merged, such asWikipedia:Featured article review/Tropical Depression Ten (2005)/archive1. On ROT13, the other two coordinators Cas liber and Nikkimaria accepted the speedy delist (per their comments on the review page) -- I wouldn't want it thought that I acted unilaterally!DrKay (talk)20:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AKA was a misread on my part. I added mention of you. Do you think this one's ready to move to something likeWikipedia:ROT13 precedent?Ten Pound Hammer •^{(What did I screw up now?)}22:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problems with it. Thanks.DrKay (talk)05:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you do not mind but I have reverted the article on theDominion of Pakistan back to the version of 19:43, 28 June 2025 (as edited by you).

• The version of 19:43, 28 June 2025 has an entirely understandable footnote:See territorial exchanges between India and Bangladesh (India–Bangladesh enclaves).

I appreciate that you tried to bring some sanity to the block-evading sock's efforts. And that you did this assuming good faith. I have done the same myself on other articles when trying to deal with impossible editors who later turned out to be block-evading socks.

The footnote that incorporated the block-evading sock's demands was cryptic, and did not help the user. We are better off with the 28 June version.-- Toddy1(talk)07:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I wasn't aware at the time of my edit that the IP was evading a block.DrKay (talk)16:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DrKay. I see that you insist on removing information with the only excuse of "unsourced" or "failed verification". That is not enough to remove all the information you want. You can either improve it or open a topic in the article's talk to discuss exactly what is missing. As Wikipedia recommends, "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced, the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text."

Most of it is sourced (even more than some similar articles) and what is not, is general history; and, if you have any doubt about the source, what I'm saying, or would like more specific sources, please ask me before removing it. If you persist in this approach, I'll consider that you are acting in bad faith, and we'll have to go to dispute resolution.

Greetings.TheRichic(Messages here)20:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is unchanged from the last discussion atTalk:Spanish royal family#"House of Bourbon–Anjou" listed at Redirects for discussion.DrKay (talk)20:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Sorry for the delay in responding, busy weekend. As for the matter, that doesn't answer any of my questions. So, since I don't see any constructive action, I'll open a discussion about it. Best regards.TheRichic(Messages here)07:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I wanted to just let you know about my edit that you revered. I don't want to just revert it back without explaining myself, as a conversation works best.

I added a quote, about her imitate reaction to he husbands death. The quote was 'She just got up, and threw up'. It was said by her Great Grandson King Constantine II. He heard it from a Russian princess. I liked the documentary, which was on you tube. And while i would agree, YouTube should not be a sources freely used, if it a link to a documentary, of the Former King of Greece Speaking about his great grandmother, I think it passes the inspection. I have linked below the video. I admit it is possible that the link I originally provide was not with the timestamp, I am unable to do so on this talk-page, so the timestamp is 15 minutes and 23 seconds.

Link to the video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILLNpfKFHU8MarbleTangent (talk)13:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,Thank you for correcting some of my edits on thePrincess Margaret page.ItsShandog (talk)18:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,I foundyour edit summary of"doesn't appear to have been written by a native English speaker" less than kind. I just wanted to remind you to please refrain fromassuming other editors heritage and language fluency. If you feel like there's some grammar improvements to something, you can helpWP:FIXIT, or join the talk page discussion, rather than outright reverting something that summarizes the established consensus in the area.

I'd like to understand which specific part you felt was not easy to parse? The editors participating on thetalk page discussion related to the change (which I added to address the question coming up on the talk page, since we do have an established common practice around it, which I just simply summarized) didn't seem to have a problem reading it.Feel free to respond here or on in the guideline talk page discussion. Hope you have a nice rest of your day :)Raladic (talk)19:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I markedKeith Desmond Knight for deletion because it was blank and I did not know there was a vandal who blanked it. ~Rafael(He, him) •Talk •Guestbook •Projects14:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that KingChristian IX of Denmark was the third longest-reigning Danish monarch, so why did you have to remove the edit that I made?Richie1509 (talk)12:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said, it's trivial and excessive detail. See policy atWP:PROPORTION andWP:VNOT. For guidance on what the lead should contain, seeMOS:LEAD.DrKay (talk)12:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks!Richie1509 (talk)22:17, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, didn't realise I was editing an older version of the article. Thanks for fixing this.Shahid •^Talk2me17:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drkay, I would like to seek your input to help resolve a dispute betweenNormal rookie and me regarding the article onHannah Yeoh, and previously onWan Azizah Wan Ismail. Your guidance would be greatly appreciated.Pangalau (talk)14:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrKay, Earlier in the month my notes had shown that you are a top editor at FA Jack the Ripper article on Wikipedia. My own interest has been to look at the crime film forThe Godfather in the related genre of crime, which recently had its 50th anniversary of release. The Godfather page seems to have an above average daily page count which appears to highlight its visibility to Wikipedia readers with an interest in the crime genre, and maybe you might think about the possibility of doing it as a co-nomination for promotion. Any thoughts?ErnestKrause (talk)23:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note but I'm not a regular editor of that article and it's been some time since my last FA. I would advise approaching one of the major contributors (Beyond My Ken orGareth Griffith-Jones) orVaselineeeeeeee who took it through good article review.Caleb Stanford nominated it about a year ago, but it was turned down because he hadn't consulted the article's regular contributors. He might be interested in having a second go too.DrKay (talk)07:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,DrKay. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of theWikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk)00:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi DrKay! On behalf of theBirthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you madeyour first edit and became a Wikipedian!CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!)00:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!)00:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Referring tothis edit of mine, which you reverted, all I did was to runUser:Ohconfucius'sscript to fix dashes, etc. I wasn't specifically targeting eissns inThe Portage to San Cristobal of A.H., it was the script that decided to replace the hyphens with dashes. Looking at the script'stalk page, I see this problem has already been raised a few times. —Bruce1ee^talk13:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the script and run it on the page, where it successfully avoided interfering with the issn hyphen. Regards, Ohc ^{revolution of our times}20:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. —Bruce1ee^talk00:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just noticed that you reverted a recent edit onCaroline of Brunswick's page with valid reason but then I noticed the same user has proceeded to add info on royal residences to 6 or 7 other pages. Do you think that perhaps those edits need to be checked as well, or was the original research on Caroline's article a one-off? Will be glad if you could look into it. All the best.Keivan.f^Talk14:03, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as there has been ample input into that page move request discussion, will it be closed (by you?) after 24 hours or does it need to stay open for a week? Many thanksBillsmith60 (talk)16:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves usually remain open for 7 days, but they can be closed early if consensus is clear. I prefer to leave it to someone else to close, given that I have edited the article.DrKay (talk)20:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw you removed the Republic Of south africa page (1961-1994)

Could you please restore the page thanksFreedom759 (talk)21:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]