Open main menu

Antonin ScaliaEdit

Hi there,

Regarding recent edit of Antonin Scalia. The point of the quote from that article was that he successfully convinced a dissenting judge to alter their dissent, event though he was writing for the majority. The point wasn't that he inched her slightly closer to the majority - it was that it is unusual for a dissenter to change their dissent based on the influence of a member of the majority on any case - and therefor shows a level of clout on his part that is unusual for an associate justice. I'll leave it up to you to decide if you want to put it back in. As far as notability, it was notable enough that at least one article reported on it, so... Schnapps17 (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removedEdit

Hello Drkay! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MusikBot II talk 17:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Calgary StampedeEdit

Thank you DrKay. That link you found for the Calgary Stampede article for the A brand of its own: the 100 year history of the Calgary Exhibition and Stampede book in the University of Calgary website that is now holding the Calgary Stampede Archives is a much better link. And now I see many more links that many be useful to several Calgary Stampede articles. I should have dug deeper. You did, and this type of dedication is what makes Featured Articles special. Thanks a bunch! dawnleelynn(talk) 20:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought about this further and wanted to add: I really should have found the book link you did, my bad; Also, I wanted you to know that it is recommended for many good reasons not to remove dead links, even after a long time. I am linking you to "Keeping dead links" at WP:KDL. It's not official policy, but it is highly recommended. As in this case, there was a solution to this dead link.
Oh yes, and here's an article I wrote that has two book sources with URLs in both. It really does happen more than you might think. Eternal Sun dawnleelynn(talk) 22:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent revertEdit

Hello, you correctly reverted one of my edits at Maria Feodorovna (Dagmar of Denmark). I apologize for making this careless error - is this be the right article to link for the assassination? Dartslilly (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC) Regarding the article, on Archie Windsor, okay, i dont see a major deal here, it is likely you just want things to be done your way! and no one else's, Lol. i cannot see any ARTILClE what-so-ever on wikipedia , that does not have the title in bold in the infobox (same as the article listed, by the way), and then the persons FULL NAME under that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC) at least also a persons full namer is ALWAYS WITHOUT EXCEPTION: listed in infobox — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Look at every article listed at John Smith and the instructions at Template:Infobox person. Besides, it was discussed on the talk page, so you have to go there if you think consensus has changed. DrKay (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

yes, because someone that is John Smith it is already disambiguated at the top of the title. anyhow, if it is not under a parameter of born as,the persons name is listed under "full name", if you look at Prince Charles or Queen Elizabeth, the full name may not be listed with then the date of birth under it, but it is still listed — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019Edit

Can you explain, for example, how the absence of an inline citation supporting the claim that Charles III, Duke of Parma is the son of Charles II, Duke of Parma, a claim which firstly is abundantly sourced on the corresponding pages, and which is secondly entirely uncontentious, is problematic from a BLP perspective on the article for Prince Sixtus Henry of Bourbon-Parma?

WP:BLPSOURCE explains that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation", and WP:BLPREMOVE explains that "any contentious material" should be removed. This is a mistaken, or at best perverse, interpretation of the BLP policy. All you are achieving here is wasting my time by making me needlessly transfer references from one article to the other to support uncontroversial claims (which are already supported with adequate citations in the corresponding articles). Endymion.12 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You would be wasting your time on a needless endeavor, on that we can agree. These sections would be better reduced rather than expanded for the reasons so often rehearsed at the various discussions already held on the issue. DrKay (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
That's a separate question, I'm asking you about the BLP rationale for this edit and the preceding one. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Ten days later, I will assume you don't intend to defend your revert. Unless you reply I will restore the (shortened) list of ancestors. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I object to the restoration of unsourced content into the biography of a living person. For all I know, this "René de Kerret, vicomte de Quillien" might be a serial killer completely unrelated to the subject. Provide an inline citation or leave it out. Surtsicna (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
In that case, I will only restore the content for which there are sources on the corresponding pages. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The sources for the content found in an article should be in that article. A person reading the article Prince Sixtus Henry of Bourbon-Parma should not have to go to ten other articles to verify the information found in Prince Sixtus Henry of Bourbon-Parma. Surtsicna (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I've defended such edits on multiple occasions over multiple take pages. I see no reason to repeat them all over again. Refer to the previous discussions. DrKay (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
(Replying to both): That's not a policy requirement, the content only needs to be verified. If you are intent on pursuing this silly game, you have your work cut out. Perhaps you can start by removing the ancestry sections for Karl von Habsburg, Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg, Felipe VI of Spain, and practically every relevant BLP on the site. I'm glad you have more leisure time than I do. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


Could you please block user:2409:4052:2111:ADC4:0:0:A8B:8A4 for disruptive editing. CLCStudent (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure. DrKay (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Citations within global warmingEdit

Hello DrKay,

About two months ago, you identified some nonworking short-cites in global warming. Since, I think we've fixed those, but possibly introduced a couple more. Would you be willing to do a check again? We've decided not to go for FAR, but instead peer review. For those reviewers, it would be nice if all short-cites work. Thanks in advance! Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

There's one I can't fix: Good et al. 2010 (footnote 142). DrKay (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The removal of Good et al. hasn't helped: it's had some king of domino effect that means there are more harv errors downstream. DrKay (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Curious.. Can I do anything to help with my limited knowledge here? Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I can't explain it. I think I've fixed the new ones, but they weren't showing before. Bizarre! DrKay (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Use Ogasawara Islands as the Standard Name DisputeEdit

Hello, I dispute the closure of the page move request and premature "result" of renaming the page Bonin Islands to Ogasawara Islands. Before I request a move review I will attempt to discuss the matter with you (the closer). Here's a repost of my explanation on the talk page (11 August 2019): Continuation of disagreement with AjaxSmack's opposition to rename the page to Ogasawara Islands. Because as per the discussion of "Use Ogasawara Islands as the Standard Name" enough points and policy-relevant evidence was given which counter AjaxSmack's comments. No consensus was reached yet. This page continues the wrongful use of the informal name "Bonin islands" which is wrongfully portrayed as the standard name. This wrongful portrayal continues the disparity in informal use. Also disagree with the premature and one-sided "result" DrKay said: "the result of the move request was: not moved. The longstanding practice of the English-language wikipedia is to use the common name in English." Completely disagree, because Ogasawara Islands is also sufficiently common enough to support a name change. For example when Bombay was renamed by the Indians to Mumbai, Bombay was still more commonly used, yet Mumbai was the official name and also used by English speakers so the page was renamed accordingly. They could've kept using the informal name Bombay, because it's more common, but it was changed to Mumbai. Same situation here. Ogasawara Islands is a less popular name than "Bonin" but it is also used significantly by English Speakers. The incorrect portrayal of the informal name "Bonin" on this page and elsewhere is what continues the gap between the use of Ogasawara. Google Maps only shows the name "Ogasawara" on the geographic location. Another example that applies here is the name change of Astana to Nur-Sultan and Swaziland to Eswatini. These were quickly changed on Wikipedia in accordance with the official name change even though the new names were less popular. Google Ngram Viewer shows Astana is more popular than Nursultan, but the page was renamed to Nur-Sultan. Many English media and other international media outlets use the name Ogasawara too. Furthermore, plenty of people in the past have argued in favor of renaming this page to Ogasawara Islands. Thus this page move is inevitable. (Artanisen (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC))

You agreed to the terms of use when you started editing wikipedia, those terms include adherence to community policies. Wikipedia:Article titles is a policy. The close stands. DrKay (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019Edit

  Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kolkata, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Tamravidhir (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

If you wish to please either replace the citation with one per WP:RS or add a citation need tag. Please do not remove content without talk page consensus. --Tamravidhir (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Kolkata, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Tamravidhir (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Kolkata. Tamravidhir (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tamravidhir (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Your response on my talk page has been seemingly aggressive and I urge you to not remove content with maintenance tags unless a consensus is reached. --09:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
You have breached 3RR on Kolkata by performing 4 reverts in the last 8 hours. Your harassment here is also unsavory. You will be reported to ANI if you post here again. DrKay (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lisa the Skeptic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alternate reality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy linkEdit

Hi DrKay. I wanted to let you know about WP:THQ#Follow-up to Editors are editing and removing my articles and demanding quotations of sources when they are already quoted. just as a courtesy in case you weren't aware of it. Perhaps there's a way to better explain why the content was removed on the article's talk page? The user-warnings you left seem to have been misinterpreted, and I don't think the other editor quite understood your edit summaries. There's not much more that can be done at the Teahouse than what's done already and it's really not the best place to discuss this in too much detail. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about redirectsEdit

I’ll avoid doing those from now on. But can I ask if it is okay that I changed WilliamsF1 to Williams Grand Prix Engineering in the past? JamesVilla44 (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's anything to worry about. DrKay (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Request to provide reason for moving River DyfiEdit

Upon closing a move discussion a reason is usually provided for moving or not moving the article. However, I cannot see a reason for moving upon closing Talk:River Dyfi#Requested move 28 July 2019 unlike with Talk:Aberdyfi#Requested move 17 June 2019 in which User:Cuchullain stated 'The result of the move request was: No move. Both names appear to be in use, but the consensus here is that the sources suggest "Aberdyfi" is the common name in English-language sources.' though this was only added after I asked them to provide a reason. Although I spoke out in favour of moving the article now titled River Dyfi I am curious to why 'River Dyfi' was chosen over the original 'Afon Dyfi' suggestion considering a number of articles about rivers in this part of Wales use the 'Afon' prefix. I have recently started discussions on the Afon Rheidol and Afon Mawddach articles with a view of moving them to 'River Rheidol' and 'River Mawddach' considering a large proportion of the mainstream media uses the 'River' prefix. The discussion Talk:Afon Rheidol#Requested move 21 August 2019 was closed by User:BD2412 stating 'No consensus to move at this time, after much-extended time for discussion.' Given the controversy over whether to use 'River' or 'Afon' I am considering whether to suggest such a guideline in Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers#Title which currently states '"River X" is used generally for notable rivers in the UK and Ireland, yet many other watercourses are, quite properly, locally and cartographically named "X Beck", "X Water", "X Race" e.g.Trout Beck in the Lake District.'

If you could provide your reason in Talk:River Dyfi#Requested move 28 July 2019 this might also be appreciated by other users looking for a precedent in the 'River' vs 'Afon' dispute. Tk420 (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

It's obviously the consensus of the commentators. No-one opposed it and all three declarations, plus the nominator, were in favor. DrKay (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The nominator suggested moving the article to 'Afon Dyfi'. I am wondering if there is a reason for moving it to 'River Dyfi' besides there being more comments in favour of using the 'River' prefix remembering Wikipedia is not a democracy. In the Talk:Afon Rheidol#Requested move 21 August 2019 discussion I did use a similar argument in favour of moving the Afon Rheidol article but it was rejected in the end. I would still appreciate a reason being provided as I am still unsure of the formality of the use of the 'Afon' prefix in the English-language. Tk420 (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
The nominator said, and I quote exactly, "Alternatives would be to move to River Dyfi". I said nothing about democracy. My comment stands. My close stands. If you're not happy with it, go to Wikipedia:Move review. DrKay (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I am the nominator in question. @Tk420: it would have been courteous for you to have alerted me of this conversation. For clarity, I support the consensus that developed at the talk page for the page move to River Dyfi, and support DrKay's original correct close, which I feel should be re-instated. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I was actually satisfied with the move to 'River Dyfi' which appears to be the most common name for it in reliable modern-day English-language sources. I was merely asking DrKay to provide a reason for the decision to use 'River' over 'Afon' in case it is helpful in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers#RfC about the examples of local names discussion I started about the wider dispute on whether to use 'River' or 'Afon' in the title of an article about a river in Wales. This contrasts with my request to User:Cuchullain to provide their reason to not move Aberdyfi to 'Aberdovey' which they provided in Talk:Aberdyfi#Requested move 17 June 2019 and I publically thanked them for it. Tk420 (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Happy First edit day!Edit

  Hey, DrKay. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
PATH SLOPU 15:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "DrKay".