This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled astoday'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 atWikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article atWikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there byuser:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlistWikipedia: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]
@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,
Yes. When you click on theinitiate the nomination link, a pre-populated window will open. Part of the code in that window is<small>Nominator(s): ~~~~</small>. Add the co-nominator as donehere.DrKay (talk)08:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DrKay The discussion you started yesterday on the talk page for the articleWilliam, 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,
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 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]
HelloDrkay! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access toAutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from theCheckPage. 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 atWP:PERM/AWB. Thank you!—MusikBot IItalk17:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm facing resistance from Miesianiacal inMonarchism in Canada (see[1]) andRepublicanism in Canada (seeTalk: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]
@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? RegardsMSincccc (talk)13:58, 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. RegardsMSincccc (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 theSherlock 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. RegardsMSincccc (talk)15:02, 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. RegardsMSincccc (talk)17:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going by by statistics as per Xtools can I nominateKarlie 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. RegardsMSincccc (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. RegardsMSincccc (talk)16:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DrKay The reviewer forPrince 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]
@DrKay As you know both I and Keivan are among the top five contributors as well as the top two editors to the articleWilliam, 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]
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]
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]
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]
@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]
@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]
Hi. Do you happen to have access to this book by John Harvey PinchesISBN978-0-900455-25-4? 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.fTalk21:18, 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 withRosemary 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.fTalk18:23, 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.fTalk21:26, 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 ofWP: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. RegardsMSincccc (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, atTalk: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]
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 heonce served as a career officer in theRoyal 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]
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Coat of arms
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]
Hi. I have noticed a potential contradiction regardingPrince Richard's role within theRoyal Auxiliary Air Force (RAuxAF).Here he's described as the colonel-in-chief, whilehere 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.fTalk23:18, 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]
@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 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]
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.
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]
Removing baronial title from page for 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 formerThree 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:
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 thanksKellycrak88 (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]
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.
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.
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 violatingWP: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 ofWP: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]
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]
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 factKellycrak88 (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]
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.fTalk06:39, 31 July 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 protocolsChonky edna 2.1 (talk)10:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DrKay We have been trying to create and write a new article forRobert 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]
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)
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]
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.
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. RegardsMSincccc (talk)03:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've also reverted four times in less than 24 hours onCatherine, 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. RegardsMSincccc (talk)09:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relook at the edit request for the India-Pakistan war 1965
So the oldest living member of the British royal family isEdward, notAlexandra, 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]
While Queen Camilla would, in aheraldic sense, have a banner of her coat of arms, this is not the case. In these photos on these links,[5],[6], and[7] (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.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at theWikipedia: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!
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]
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]
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.
@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]
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]
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."
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]
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:[8] 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[9]) andOn a Sea of Glass (2013 Amberley edition available on google books[10]). 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]
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]
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?
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]
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]
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.
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.
@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]
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]
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]
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". — EF515:24, 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'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.
@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]
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]
@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. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. Thank you.John (talk)16:57, 21 August 2024 (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]%2c_escut_i_bandera.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}