Hi there - you've removed his legal baronial title on the pageMahfouz 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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

please kindly consider reverting your changes as it is not a pretend title, it is a title of ancient scottish nobility the dignity of which is protected in law, these ancient titles of feudal origin are very specific to Scotland and are an important part of Scottish culture, many 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]

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

Apologies I got his name wrong:

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

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

His coat of arms: Mahfouz Marei Binmahfouz, Baron of Abernethyhttps://armorialregister.com/arms-sco/binmahfouz-mm-arms.htmlKellycrak88 (talk)21:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

See wikipedia article:Public Register of All Arms and Bearings in ScotlandKellycrak88 (talk)21:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Are we not approaching it from a neutral point of view? I'm knowledgable on the subject of nobility titles (I'm a hobby genealogist) but I don't believe I'm 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]

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

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

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

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

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

that article and none of the articles that I've read state it's a fake name or pretend title as you've been implying, as far as I can see his name with title is stated and is a matter of 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]

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

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

Hi. Is Burke’s Peerage considered a reliable source? I happen to remember a discussion on its reliability but I cannot pinpoint where and when it took place. Thought maybe you had some insight.Keivan.f^Talk06:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

@DrKay We have been trying to create and write a new article 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]

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

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

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you 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]

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

Hi DrKay,

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

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

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

Best regards,

Kellycrak88Kellycrak88 (talk)16:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unfortunately, @DrKay, despite your warning to the concerned editor he has continued with his disruptive behaviour and again added the Arms section in the main article contrary to what was agreed upon. He has neither started any discussion on the Talk page nor has he left any edit summary justifying his actions. Please look into it soon. 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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the oldest living member of the British royal family 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]

No. It was added to the relevant article two years ago.[1].DrKay (talk)09:51, 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,[2],[3], and[4] (you ought to see user jared's comment on the final link on Reddit). The standard of Queen Camilla is so little reported on because Royal Standards usually are only thought about by general people and media for royal funerals, state occasions, etc. where the royal standard is prominent. However, Queen Camilla rarely uses a standard. I also noticed that she used the ermine version on the state car for the Service of Thanksgiving for Constantine II.
I find that there is no legitimate source for the standard of Camilla, but based on photography etc.. It seems she doesn't use a banner with her Arms.
Thank you..
SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk)17:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Kay--

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

James Peill"

That settles it.

Thank you, again.

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

Dr Kay--

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

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

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at 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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in 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:[5] 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[6]) andOn a Sea of Glass (2013 Amberley edition available on google books[7]). 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[8], 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[9]. 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[10]. 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[11]. 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]

• Pages with missing files