User talk:DrKay

Prince Albert

Hi,

Thanks for taking the time to review my edits on the Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha page.

The relevance and uniqueness is that Albert was not just a patron of the Horticultural Society - he was its President. Albert played a very active role in the Society during his tenure. The RHS Garden, Kensington (which Albert was instrumental in the creation of) was also a central part of 'Albertopolis' (indeed, it took up the whole area from just south of the Albert Hall to where the NHM now is). Albert very much viewed horticulture as part of his programme of cultural and scientific education.

Albert did help to get the charter in so far as he granted it himself while president. This claim is repeated in other sources, e.g. https://plants.jstor.org/partner/WSY — Preceding unsigned comment added by RHSLibraries (talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

RHS Libraries (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2026 (BST)

Princess Margaret

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

Less than kind edit summary

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

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

Sorry

I marked Keith Desmond Knight for deletion because it was blank and I did not know there was a vandal who blanked it. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 14:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Christian IX edit

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

As I already said, it's trivial and excessive detail. See policy at WP:PROPORTION and WP:VNOT. For guidance on what the lead should contain, see MOS:LEAD. DrKay (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Zinta

I apologise, didn't realise I was editing an older version of the article. Thanks for fixing this. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Request for comment

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

Jack the R.

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

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

Happy First Edit Day!

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

Happy First Edit Day!

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

Hyphen in eissns

Referring to this edit of mine, which you reverted, all I did was to run User:Ohconfucius's script to fix dashes, etc. I wasn't specifically targeting eissns in The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H., it was the script that decided to replace the hyphens with dashes. Looking at the script's talk page, I see this problem has already been raised a few times. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Thank you. —Bruce1ee^talk 00:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Residences

Hi. I just noticed that you reverted a recent edit on Caroline of Brunswick's page with valid reason but then I noticed the same user has proceeded to add info on royal residences to 6 or 7 other pages. Do you think that perhaps those edits need to be checked as well, or was the original research on Caroline's article a one-off? Will be glad if you could look into it. All the best. Keivan.f^Talk 14:03, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Prince Andrew

Hi, as there has been ample input into that page move request discussion, will it be closed (by you?) after 24 hours or does it need to stay open for a week? Many thanks Billsmith60 (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Unblock the republic of south africa page

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

Could you please restore the page thanks Freedom759 (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about the validity of the article's title, raised previously here before that article was even created. I have notified the previous author of the concerns discussed there, and would like to request you refrain from restoring the article until we've had more time to discuss the issue. --Katangais (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

About Frederik X

Dear Editor. Regarding the edits to the King of Denmark's article. The source does indeed provide this title. But you used the template's guidance to undo another edit. The template, however, says about the "title" field: "Principal substantive title(s) in use (e.g. King of England; prev. Duke of Edinburgh) (omit this field if any one "succession(X)" field would be identical to it). Automatically italicized, so do not use {{plainlist}} or similar templates; use <br /> for line breaks." The title of King of Denmark, which is the primary title, is already in the succession field. Therefore, it should not be in the "title" field (just as subsidiary titles should not be). In the case of monarchs, this field should be empty. In the template itself, no additional title for the king is placed in the "title" field. Remember, not everything that has a source should be included. I don't speak English, so I apologize for any translation errors. Please don't insist on reversions without prior discussion (two people have already disagreed with your edit). Fabiojrsouza (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Obviously I don't insist on reversions without prior discussion. The people you mention did not provide a reason for the edit in one case and gave a false reason in the other two. I was the only one to do so, until your post here. False accusations of impropriety are in breach of Wikipedia:Civility. DrKay (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Guide to temporary accounts

Hello, DrKay. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

Editing from a temporary account

• When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
• All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
• A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
• As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
  • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
  • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

How to enable IP Reveal

• Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
• Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

• It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
• It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
• Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

• Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
• Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
• See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

• It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
  • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
• Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
• Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
• The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

• How to use Special:IPContributions
• How automatic IP reveal works
• How to use IP Info
• How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

• For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Prince Andrew

Hi, there is a request here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prince_Andrew#Requested_move_30_October_2025 for an admin. to close this page move request. You've made a small number of edits but does that really 'disqualify' you? Thanks Billsmith60 (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I've been wondering about closing it and I think on balance we're not gaining anything by keeping it open. Thanks for the note. DrKay (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

You made the right call. I'm sure it was a bit daunting to close such an active discussion early, but I doubt much value would have been gained by prolonging things for another five days. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for cutting the Gordian Knot! Billsmith60 (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The British Princes category you added seems to be missing the early 20th century princes who were demoted . . . (but I am too lazy to dig deeper or add them). Utahredrock (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Whitechapel murders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Social Democrats.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Rudeness

You are extremely discourteous, much to Wikipedia's discredit. Richard75 (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

You are introducing false information that you made up, much to your discredit. DrKay (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Preserved British Steam Locomotives

Just purely for info, Preserved British Steam Locomotives isn't a reliable source - it was discussed a while back at WP:RSN - WP:PBSL. No harm done in this case, as you were just removing unsourced content which shouldn't be there anyway, but just passing on the info :-) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

User MicNickBell

Hi, are you able to block User:MicNickBell from editing, due to repeatedly reverting Garry Kasparov? Thus is the second time recently 'they' (likely a pro-Kremlon editor or bot) have been warned about their behaviour? Thank you Billsmith60 (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked from that page, but as it's their first block (assuming it's not a sock) I've kept back from a wider block at this stage. DrKay (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Billsmith60 (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your diligence in keeping a tight ship regarding the edits of Mary I of England Eurostarguage (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Thank you for having clarified my doubts whenever I had any. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

warning about modification of Andrew biographie and his implication of Jeffrey Epstein pédophile network

Hi, My source is this Netflix documentary about Jeffrey Epstein https://www.netflix.com/fr-en/title/80224905?preventIntent=true Perhaps you should look at it before saying that I'm inserting false information into Wikipedia.I will not become complicit in an organized pedophilia system Jeffrey Epstein is a true pedophile who raped hundreds of underage girls with his We must denounce all of this. Have a good day @DrKay Oriongrey (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Unless this documentary states explicitly that Andrew raped children multiple times, as you claimed and apparently still claim, it is not sufficient as a source and you are in breach of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. If you breach this policy, despite being warned about it, you will be blocked. DrKay (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Revert of Edward VII

How does a user know that he didn't spend a year observing military manoeuvres (the reason he was sent there) and met her the following year in 1862. Adding the year to the date makes it absolutely clear when they met, and is why various Wikipedia guidelines (most notably [[WP:DATE}) suggest including the year in dates. That guidance is also given because some users may extract just the one sentence from the paragraph (say, when writing a historical essay), in which case they would not know whenthey met. It is pointless to waste your time arguing over an additional 5 characters (blank plus the 4-digit year) when guidelines suggest they be added, and therefore your revert has been reverted. Truthanado (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:DATE, the year can be omitted when there is no risk of ambiguity. The preceding sentence and follow-on sentences mean that there is no ambiguity here, and repeating it is poor writing style. DrKay (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

PCR

Hello DrKay, when you have a second can you remove pending changes reviewer from my account? Thanks, Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 07:45, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

William, The Duke of Gloucester

Hello, please could you share the link to the source which attributes The Duke of Gloucester's March to John Blow. Thanks Ahoek367 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/962968. DrKay (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. This source refers to a song by Blow, titled "The Duke of Gloucester's March", but the instrumental march itself is by Clarke. Clarification of this distinction may be helpful to prevent confusion and misattribution. Ahoek367 (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

James IV

There may be some uncertainty about whether James IV of Scotland contains copyvios, see the talk page. Do you have any comments? PatGallacher (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Sheffield

Sheffield has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Unknown master

I found a high probability sock of but I can't figure out the master as there was no SPI for . I saw this but the results were hard to interpret and behaviorally its only a loose match to . How should I file - under ? NicheSports (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I think you'll have to file under BlueDIAMOND20s, noting the similarity to Rrrivjwjhv as your evidence. DrKay (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, just filed there NicheSports (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Civility

Hello, I'm Pennine rambler. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to George V. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. please refrain Hello, I'm Pennine rambler. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to please refrain from personal attacks. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. The personal attack was within this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bertrand_Dawson,_1st_Viscount_Dawson_of_Penn&diff=prev&oldid=1339176043 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennine rambler (talk • contribs)

I've read the linked diff. I don't think that counts as a civilty or an NPA violation. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 14:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Undue reverts and removals

I have made balanced edits that have been unduly removed. I have taken onboard other users reasons and integrated those with my edits. My additions should be maintained Djbite (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

You should discuss content disputes on the relavant article's talk page. You may start a discussion on William by following this link.

I would also advice you to provide rationales and supporting evidences when making claims like my edits are balanced and the removal is unduly, especially when your edits were reverted by multiple seasoned editors independantly. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 14:39, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Garry Kasparov (again)

Hi DK, (new) user Gaga2222 is ignoring requests by me and one other to stop adding wrong info. there. S/he also blanked my user page before restoring it after I said not to. That person's Talk might give you an idea whether they need blocked from GK. Cheers Billsmith60 (talk) 10:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

It's over 24 hours since the last edit to Kasparov, so I think it's sunk in that the edit was incorrect. DrKay (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

This user is also engaged in disruptive edits to Magnus Carlsen and refuses to engage at Talk Billsmith60 (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I've issued a specific invite, so let's see how that plays out. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Inquiry into repeated reverts and editorial conduct

Hello Dr. Kay,

I am writing to inquire about the specific issues you have with my recent contributions. I have noticed that while my other edits remain untouched, my work regarding the Commonwealth Realms is consistently reverted. I hope this hasn't become a personal matter; it is quite discouraging to spend hours conducting research and navigating the complexities of Wikipedia’s guidelines only to have my work deleted without a specific explanation.

If certain elements of my contributions were perceived as factually inaccurate or improperly framed, I believe a more collaborative approach would have been to refine or correct those specific points. Deleting a fellow contributor’s hard work in its entirety—especially after multiple attempts to source and improve the text—feels less like a peer review and more like a repetitive cycle of reverts, which I find highly unprofessional. This "back-and-forth" is quite unpalatable and does not foster a productive editing environment.

Furthermore, I have found the tone of the messages left on my talk page to be unnecessarily harsh. To speak of a ban when I have contributed significantly to this wiki is distressing. While I do not typically produce edits as highly curated as those on the "Commonwealth Realms" article—as I normally use information from verifiable sources with as little intervention as possible—my goal here was simply to provide clarity. As we know, the distinction between the Commonwealth Realms and the Commonwealth of Nations is often blurred in public discourse and poorly articulated on many websites. My intent was to provide a basic, accurate summary to prevent reader confusion, using the source material with as much integrity as possible.

Rather than threatening my standing on the site as if I were an inexperienced user, I would expect a fellow Wikipedian to offer constructive feedback. I believe you could have provided guidance on how to correct the paragraph or addressed the debated terms I used. You might have even provided more factual information or reliable sources to better illustrate this distinction for the readers, instead of repeatedly reverting my work and issuing threats.

I welcome a more constructive dialogue on my talk page if you wish to discuss how we can improve this section together. AnonymouslyFrench.

P.S. I have also noticed a pattern of coordinated reverts involving other accounts, such as Celia Homeford, which makes it difficult to establish a genuine community consensus. I would prefer to engage in an open discussion on the Talk page where all viewpoints are considered based on their merit and sourcing. AnonymouslyFrench (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not aware of other edits since I am not a stalker. Specific explanations were provided for the reverts.

I am not responsible for the wording of talk page templates. The content was not verifiable, as was explained.

Constructive feedback was provided. Guidance was provided.

The 'section, which is the lead, does not require improvements. It certainly does not require unsourced original research not found in the article body.

There is no meatpuppetry and making unjustified accusations of impropriety is a breach of Wikipedia:Civility. DrKay (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Armorial of the United Kingdom

Don't you think that all these anon IPS are socks of The Chronicler of Chroniclers ? May be it makes sense to request range block for 202.175.220.13x ? --Altenmann >talk 19:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Greek royal family; family list

Hello. I would like to know you deleted much of my edit to Greek royal family. I looked at the Revision history, and there was no explanation. I would like to learn, for the future. ~2026-18192-75 (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Why should they be treated any differently from all the other distant relations in that list? I see no reason to expand any of the non-Greek families. DrKay (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The reason I listed them all was because if Prince Philip had not renounced, then His Children, the Children of his sons, & the Children on his sons sons would all be members of the Greek Royal family, and they were listed in the proper way they should have been, with the children of the girls also being added. ~2026-18192-75 (talk) 08:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

But he did renounce, so they are not. DrKay (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

fair ~2026-18192-75 (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Royal titles and names

Per Wikipedia Manual of Style for biographies of royalty, the birth_name field should only contain the given names, excluding titles and territorial designations. Refer to the London Gazette announcement of 1884. Celestinehistory (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I haven't seen those style guidelines, and they would contradict Template:Infobox royalty/doc. Could you link them please. DrKay (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Aaron Kosminski image

Thanks for reverting my edit, that article I read with the image most definitely was misleading for calling it “contemporary”. Have a great rest of your day The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Destubathon of the Americas

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

"A picnic table"

If you actually looked at the image, you would see there is actually much more than a picnic table. EastEnglandGuy (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, three more picnic tables! KJP1 (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

And a flower garden, trees, benches… EastEnglandGuy (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

User seems to be following me around?

Hey there, I hope you are well. So I have a bit of dilemma and I didn't know where to bring it. Since you're usually at the Titanic article, I thought I'd bring your attention to it.

There's a new user named Jbrill who has been active, as you may know, in that same page and initially, I assumed they were being friendly with their thanks of any edits I was making. But now, I'm getting a littled concerned that they are following me to whichever page I edit and not just thanking any and every edit I seem to be making and, in cases they are miffed by my edits, pinging me to tell me what I'm doing right or wrong.

This has been on my mind for three or four days now and the reason I'm finally bringing this to your attention is that I made an article just yesterday - Harold Sanderson - and, somehow, they are there too despite it being less than a day old, and now they are lecturing me with WP rules which I already am fully aware of in talk pages and edit summaries. I don't know if this comes under WP:HOUNDING but it is getting concerning for me. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. If they are following you, they will see this message and should moderate their behavior as a result. If they are not following you, then it may resolve itself as they become more familiar with wikipedia's norms. If it continues, I suggest thanking them for their thanks and notifications but point out politely that it is not necessary to thank every edit or ping you regarding articles that are on your watchlist. If they cite WP rules, then I think you should continue to say you are aware of the rules but then explain why you disagree. DrKay (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I will keep an eye out. They've done it a few more times since I posted this so if it happens again, I will tell them on their talk page. I hope it stops them but genuinely starting to seem like I'm being watched whenever I go to edit something or other. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, I did send them a message and they sent this long list justifying their actions here User talk:Jbrill05. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't want to make this a huge thing but I've tried talking to them and they are just making excuses and saying that I'm doing the same as them. Now they are saying "well I'll bring all the issues I have with your edits to talk pages". I know very well I make mistakes now and then, but I don't want to be endlessly followed around Titanic articles being pulled up on small errors, in addition to being asked why I edited what I did. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@DrKay, I'm sorry to bother you with this again but they are still doing it. They somehow find me whenever I edit any page related to Titanic. They claim they are trying to contribute like anyone else but somehow they only seem to "contribute" by going wherever I go and basically judging my edits. They've stopped liking every edit I do but I just edited Hugh McElroy and then they showed up there after a while. Same with when I edited Jack Phillips (wireless operator) earlier today. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

User now in my talk page and hounding me.

Hello, Dr Kay. I'm really truly sorry if I am bothering you with this again, only I am on the verge of tears here. The behavior of this user is really distressing me and I would appreciate if this can be resolved.

I wanted to let you to know that this user is now in my talk page asking me to justify why I removed another set of citation tags even though I gave my answer in the edit summary of the Hugh McElroy article. They brought it to MY talk page, not the article's even though there is a discussion there which you are also part of.

Its been a few days since I've been dealing with this sort of hounding from them. I've asked them to stop but to no avail. And if I have, in any way, dealt with this badly or made some error in my editing, I'm truly sorry for that. But I've also never dealt with a user constantly coming after me like this, and just showing up when I edit a page so I don't know what to do other than defend my edits and work.

Any sort of help or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

As you may have seen, I have now asked them to stay off your talk page and stop pinging you, and advised them to minimize contact. DrKay (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope they listen. I wouldn't like to take this any further than it already has been. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I had to report them on the notice board. I can't go on with this. It is ruining my fun of editing Wikipedia and I feel extremely uncomfortable with their behavior. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Mary II

Hello. My edits are not about Mary I. I'm studying her at university and my research on her is backed up by sources. Sorry for the edit war. ~2026-29585-15 (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reverts/changes to my edits. I am new here and trying to learn the ropes. Thank you again, @DrKay ~2026-29585-15 (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gyanendra of Nepal, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Joseph Higginson

Hi, I am going through the recently draftified article for Draft:Joseph Higginson by adding sources and details but on one of the sources I just can't seem to fix it. It reference 13 and 15, one for a website for the movements of Higginson's detachment and the other a newspaper but it keeps saying something about half errors, could you take a look at it and fix it/let me know how to fix it.

Thanks HRowntree (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

There were missing end tags like "/>". DrKay (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much. HRowntree (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

When a woman's husband has died ..

Is it more proper to says she "is his wife" or "was his wife."

We differ. Your reverted to "is his wife" saying she "is his widow." That misses the point.

A woman who is a widow can marry without violating polygamy laws. A woman who is a wife cannot.As an example.

So "was his wife" is I think better. So it seems does AI ..

https://www.google.com/search?q=if+a+husband+has+passed+away%2C+do+we+say+the+woman+is+his+wife+or+was+his+wife&client=firefox-b-1-d&hs=M9KV&sca_esv=031421e1069a5285&sxsrf=ANbL-n76RL3k6chLM4dnUKWWAFS07uuaLQ%3A1780460156623&fbs=ADc_l-aN0CWEZBOHjofHoaMMDiKp0UJuhqwKhR0QUhF54-6jIQ_jIVVZSZbDa1_5a5BDWIOI2vVdZGG2mF0lqZN2xSlYfPEPBf0NPBMqdBk_4NamuTIDJiAwzkjSM69jjyHUCaDEBtJH2kSzcY0D0yhXOTq2Tf1W8s9w1b8JVBDTKryHod3uLpkubMsFWeG9ALaD6-wqvE0RuuBtlc0Nk0BuTB0A83GIeA&aep=1&ntc=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjgi7D5muqUAxW5KFkFHZ1yOysQ2J8OegQIEBAD&biw=1230&bih=819&dpr=1&mstk=AUtExfAbk0pjL_y_OrFK4xExKggEenpm3Aauomom4eAoScGRF0lT_xeauxdCPuPZLmoOFJK5yJhIfmZWRO8q1EvS1qO3shdZ_YAEeWZZVIkvQH2zXiPVf9nMikM773jxlZg8IW5MT2JRK-ugjwv7G0wu9nUQGTu6r-rMYIG20yL1YsItRq_AHblq34FYj6PYxi6npUvsQsNjokQoBBe3RSMVb6KX8WymIGUjQM20lSKUqVKDgBhZtvJtKSMOGGPoAdMDCXV9XTA0njJhz_xytsr6dj-crXrhrKM03Qw2HL6cjHTwIgR2EXCME3ZrAIrerWlr6PYQ3gHOGROK7ocdm2Sw48dk7zCf-C4v23PYTDMOC2B2mNScxp4tZcu_wqdMwTXaHlVhZ-0cAzsA5h9rSpdqu5bMS4KMT1c8RQ&csuir=1&mtid=VKwfatDqBfOs5NoPmdje8AU&udm=50&arv=1

And while some may think either works, I don't think there is an argument against the structure that you just reverted. What do you think? ~2026-24112-43 (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

The sentence in question reads: "She is the third wife and widow". You want it to read "She was the third wife and widow". The latter does not make sense for a living woman. "She was his widow" means she is no longer his widow, presumably either remarried or dead, neither of which applies in this case. DrKay (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh. My apologies I did not see that just now. Of course you are correct that that will not work. Are you at ease with "she was his third wife and is his widow ? --~2026-24112-43 (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Request to edit

Hello. I first want to apologize, I did not relize that I was doing these mistakes on this website, including block evasion. I also did not relize I had multiple accounts. You banned me and thats fair. But, I would like to ask if I can revert back to some edits that I felt were good, and were only reverted due to the mass revert. Firstly, Duchess of Aosta, I had added some coats of arms, and would like to add them back. Secondly, Template:Sicilian Royal Family and Template:Italian royal family/doc, they both were edits done working to achieve the same goal, that depending on which branch of the house of savoy, the recognized heir would appear atop. Third, Template:Romanian royal family, a similar thing to the previous edits, of trying to separate the difrent branches for the two different sects of the house. Fourth Princess Olga of Savoy-Aosta, I had information about her difrent titiels, first as a Greek princess, then as an Italian Princess. Lastly Jane von Westenholz, she is a German baroness via her husband, and in the German tradition the wife of a titled noble takes his title, but also his name, this tradition is followed by the British and is why the wife of Prince Michel of Kent is Princess Michel of Kent. I will explaine this information, and take full responsibility if I am wrong. But I would like to be able to put back these edits that I feel are legitimate. AdamMixro (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I realized there were a few other pages as well. Template:Luxembourgish grand ducal family, This edit was made removing many of the non ‘of Luxembourg’ family members from this list. An edit for nearly the same reasons on was made on ‘Template:Dutch royal family’. On Joan Dillon, I reverted unsourced materials. On Template:Thurn und Taxis, I better formatted the list of family members. On Template:Parmesan royal family, I updated a title. On Mako Komuro, I formatted the page to be like other former Japanese Princesses. On Talk:Princess Diana and on Template talk:Belgian royal family I added concerns about confusion and the removal of an individual. On List of Americans who held noble titles from other countries, I removed duplicates. Lastly Princess Margaretha of Liechtenstein, I added information about her titiels. AdamMixro (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Because your original block is a checkuser block (as explained at User talk:JAMAMBTGE#Checkuser block), I am not permitted to undo the block without consulting a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Because you have been evading the original block, I doubt any request to them would be successful at this point. As explained through the links in the checkuser block notice, such as Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Sockpuppetry blocks, unblock requests should be made from your original account after a six month break from editing. DrKay (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

This is not an account I have ever used. In fact I only began editing Wikipedia in January 2026. That account was banned in December 2024. I had never created an account till today, as I had not realized that all my edits were not ebing saved under the same profile. AdamMixro (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Administrators have access to special tools that allows me to see that you are editing from the same city as the other accounts in exactly the same topic area. I therefore consider the claim of unrelatedness to be unlikely. DrKay (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It’s true. I’m sorry, but it is. That other account is not mine. The IP address is a school. A large school at that. AdamMixro (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Move/rename image

Hello and sorry to bother you on a Sunday. Would you mind moving this newly created image: A_small,_passport-sized_colour_image_of_a_UK_government-sponsored_report,_published_more_than_50_years_ago_(1972).jpg to Widgery Tribunal Report.jpg? I don't know how on earth I got what should be the description as the file name? Then I can fix the desxription. I hope you can help, many thanks Billsmith60 (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

No problem. DrKay (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks! Billsmith60 (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing DrKay a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! ☘︎☘︎☘︎ALEXHammeke (talk | guestbook | sandbox) 18:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Sorry about this, I think I accidentally edited from a previous version. Cheers and thanks for fixing my mistake. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Religion being mentioned

I’d like to respectfully question the removal of the “religion” parameter. While I understand that religion should not be included indiscriminately per WP:BLP and WP:INFOBOXPERSON, it is also true that Wikipedia does not restrict religion only to religious leaders. The key consideration is whether the information is reliably sourced and not undue. There are many comparable biographies—particularly of public figures, aristocratic families, and culturally prominent individuals—where religion is included when: It is well-sourced, and It forms part of the subject’s background or identity, even if not central to their profession This creates an inconsistency in application. If religion is included for similar figures (e.g., members of notable families or public figures with cultural influence), then removing it here may be applying a stricter standard than elsewhere. Additionally, religion can be a basic biographical detail, similar to ethnicity or family background, when sourced. Its inclusion does not violate BLP as long as it is neutral, verifiable, and non-contentious JancIroni (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Religion in infoboxes for guidance. DrKay (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

A lot of royals still have religion mentioned on their pages. Queen Marie’s younger sisters have their religion mentioned. Beatrice and Victoria Melita. Juan Carlos’ father also has his religion mentioned even though he wasn’t the King. I still think the royals do need their religion mentioned, royalty is linked to religion in many ways, that’s why monarchy started. JancIroni (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Please remove religion from any infoboxes where it should not be given. DrKay (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Vivien Leigh

Hello. Do you have any objections to me restoring the changes, after the talk page explanation? Everything is detailed in the Dark Star source. Vanezi (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Not as long as an appropriate citation is added. The way you had it before was citing it to Vickers' book published in 1988. DrKay (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I added another footnote to resolve this issue. Thanks. Vanezi (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Help on something you wrote on the Article about George IV

I stumbled over something your wrote in the Article,that seems incorrect. It uses a source I don't have so I thought maybe you could help me by identifying where the source supports it. This is the related Talk page, please answer me there:

Talk:George IV#c-~2026-43094-28-20260806172500-George IV. was not the first Monarch to visit Ireland since Richard II.

thx ~2026-43094-28 (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Great Famine (Ireland)

Hi, if you have time, can you check recent addition to the article. Thanks Denisarona (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)