Open main menu

Hi, I am Shivang 1304 It's mandatory to use the definite article The with the name of the children of the sovereign of the United Kingdom. But as soon as I edited the page List of titles and honours of Charles, Prince of Wales, the changes were reverted by you. In this regard even, you need citation. The pages of other children of Elizabeth II include the use of definite article with their names. You may refer them.

There are two citations, one of which is the official website. Neither use The. DrKay (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Provide me the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

They're in the article:
"The Prince of Wales: Titles". Clarence House. n.d. Retrieved 17 April 2018. Click on the Titles link on the left-hand side.
"Prince Charles Fast Facts". CNN. n.d. Retrieved 10 July 2017. Scroll down to "His full title is:"

But the former does not use his name Charles, therefore does not use the definite article and the latter has taken from wikipedia itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

That is blatantly false as anyone actually looking at the source can see. Go to Click on 'Titles' in the left-hand menu. First thing at the top of the page is His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, QSO, CC, PC, ADC, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland.
The CNN article pre-dates the wikipedia content. It was written on 27 June 2013, before wikipedia contained that content. DrKay (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


Repeated destructive editing by you of the Francis Tumblety pageEdit

There was nothing wrong with that edit's style or prose & you know it, you've removed verifiable new sources, & if you wanted the books moved to the Refs list, then you should have made that edit rather than just deleting them from the page. Bad editing by you of Wikipedia repeatedly in multiple ways, & finishing it by abuse of Admin authority to get away with it is even worse. Re-think your life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You know you were vandalizing the web address[1][2] to be irritating, even though I'd explained three times[3][4][5]. If you continue this line of harassment and disruptive editing, you will be blocked. DrKay (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Count Flemming af RosenborgEdit

Dear Dr. Kay,

I noticed that some corrections have been made and we had such a great interaction last time and you were able to help me correct some of the mistakes someone had made. I, as you know, am not that familiar with IT in general. You had been so gracious to fix all of it and had included all the members of the family. May I ask if we can revert it back to the original, which we created together?

Thank you, Truth-seer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth-seer (talkcontribs) 23:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you should make a case for inclusion at Talk:Count Flemming Valdemar of Rosenborg#Irrelevant names. DrKay (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Kay,

Thank you for writing me back. I noticed the page he made. We had a conversation and he changed it back to his own original text including the rest of the family. Can I please change it back to what it was previously?

I would really appreciate it.

Thank you, Truth-seer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth-seer (talkcontribs) 23:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you posted a note on the talk page of the article? I recommend against adding unsourced material back. When adding material, editors should cite their sources, and particularly for living people, those sources need to be reliable. DrKay (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Kay,

I had noticed that he had changed his mind and no longer cared what he had written. He was merely upset it seems, so he is fine with having it written the way it was initially. It would be really nice if we could have it back to the original version, which you had created a while back.

Thank you, Truth-seer

I don't see where he's changed his mind. DrKay (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Kay, If you look what he wrote afterwards he had changed everything back to what it was with his own edits. He seemed very content to change it.

Thank you, Truth-seer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth-seer (talkcontribs) 17:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

No non-notable grandchildren should be listed in any biography here. I've never changed my my mind about anything like that. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Fougaro systemEdit

I saw that you removed the questionable primary reference to Fougaro system from Cell nucleus. Might I also draw your attention to the equally questionable article of that name that was started on 29th January. The same primary reference, is used as the sole source. In that source the reference to the so-called fougaro system is merely in the form of a passing remark, not as a result of investigation of the phenomenon, so the existence of the system can neither be regarded as proven or accepted as consensus by peers. What is the policy of WP with regard to creation of such articles? In view of the obscurity of this system, it would be worth checking whether the author has a conflict of interest. Plantsurfer 17:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this information, I didn't no it before, Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for Help: Speakers of the House of CommonsEdit

Dear DrKay

Recently I have attempted to create an article listing the heraldic achievements of speakers of the British House of Commons, based on similar articles about the armorials of various heads of state and government. The draft has twice been turned down by administrators. As a significant contributor to articles relating to heraldry, your assistance would be most valuable.


Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Adam GilchristEdit

Hi, I was just wondering have you looked for sources before removing these? Thanks. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

No. Nor am I going to. DrKay (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok. But is it always eligible to remove unsourced info from BLP (instead do just mentioning [citation needed]? Please explain because I am relatively new here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 06:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Generally, any editor can remove unsourced material, or tag it, or add sources. There's further guidance at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations. I chose to remove it in this case because the material was not present in the article at the time it was promoted to featured article status. Featured articles go through a review process to ensure that they are comprehensive, and so if the material was not present at the time of promotion, it is likely to be relatively trivial and may not even need to be in the article, whether sourced or not. DrKay (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Great Britain and IrelandEdit

During revisions of this page, on 13 February 2019, you have accused me of racism: "take your anti-Irish racism elsewhere". I believe an apology is in order.

The demonym corresponding to "British" is "Briton" - as, I said, in "Rule, Britannia!" ("Britons never, never, never shall be slaves"). If the demonym is racist, as anti-Irish, or "Rule, Britannia!" is, that is not my racism. What can indeed be argued about is whether, as a fact, this demonym was current usage in the UK(GBI) between 1801 and 1922. Wikiain (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

So was Irish, English, Welsh, Cornish, Scottish. You'll get no apology. DrKay (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I had assumed Princess Anne was already Queen, however the article for the Act of Settlement also describes her as the next protestant heir, perhaps that first paragraph also needs tidying.  Barliner  talk  12:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Penyston Booth & Erik, Count of RosenborgEdit

Dr Kay

You have taken to removing some decent edits to the above articles - why?

Please advise - many thanks.

Best, (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

PS. SergeWoodzing - I can see that Dr Kay can get quite heated, & because you came to the rescue above please allow me to state now that the only thing that I really wanted to add was the date of Lois Booth's second husband's death (ie. 1966) but whilst doing so thought it as well to help clarify certain other points. Anyway lemme know what next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

PPS. and my dear friend, it has only just dawned on me that whoever set up this article as Penis... ton was taking the p... His name never had penis in it. It was always Penyston, so how Wiki can allow this is let's say incroyable! So, do you know how to do an article name-change (because I don't). Let me know - cheers. (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no doubt whatsoever that these edits [6][7] are performed by sock puppet IPs of User:Qais13. The IP range, geographical location, topic, and editing style are identical to the sock master and his many puppets. Editing from the same IP range and the same geographical location, you then make an edit at the same obscure article[8]. I therefore deduce that you are a sock puppet. You have been given many opportunities for a clean start or standard offer, and each time you have refused. For a chance to be unblocked, you may return to your original account, and follow the instructions linked from User talk:Qais13#May 2012. However, I think it unlikely that you will be unblocked without first complying with the conditions of the standard offer. DrKay (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Look here my dear fellow, hands up I'm a sock but please see the wood from the trees. It has been futile to try rehab via those procedures (QV.). Whatever, I hope my "subversive" contributions somehow continue to enhance the quality of Wiki's info..? Let's not waste time your pursuing me whether out of vengeance or just so as to prove your point. 1-0 to you. Have a nice day! (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
PS. now let's see which is preferred: Edward Leeson, 6th Earl of Milltown, before or after? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
PPS. it is now more than time to declare that I am not in actual fact the sockpuppet DrKay supposes me to be and a most illuminating exercise. Good luck to whoever it is that you wish to block. Best, (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Going round in circlesEdit

I read up about DrKay's antics. So bottom line is why waste time getting embroiled in a ridiculous hoo-ha when there's plenty better things to get on with.

  • but please don't accuse my mate of sockpuppetry or anybody vaguely associated with my mate(s) - this is getting bonkers! (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
"There is no doubt whatsoever that these edits [1][2] are performed by sock puppet IPs of User:Qais13. The IP range, geographical location, topic, and editing style are identical to the sock master and his many puppets. Editing from the same IP range and the same geographical location, you then make an edit at the same obscure article[3]. I therefore deduce that you are a sock puppet. You have been given many opportunities for a clean start or standard offer, and each time you have refused. For a chance to be unblocked, you may return to your original account, and follow the instructions linked from User talk:Qais13#May 2012. However, I think it unlikely that you will be unblocked without first complying with the conditions of the standard offer. DrKay (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)"
What a joke! Judge & jury without knowing what she's talking about... I'm sorry but you see how much time you waste on nonsensical tangents? Could we all now get back to contributing to Wiki without absurd interruptions? Si? (talk) 07:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@DrKay: A nice checkuser could probably make it easy to see it match up with WP:BKFIP. – The Grid (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You know, given his deleting spree of every negative comment, I can't say I'm surprised. PS: I found yet another source about Lady Anne Halkett and, for the fourth f*cking time, am putting her back in the James II article.

NotALovelyLady (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)NotALovelyLady

Siding with a notorious sock puppeteer is not going to do you any favors, particularly after only 7 edits from your own account, 4 of which are to this page. DrKay (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Lady Rose GilmanEdit

Hi, DrKay. I would like to know if you are interested in reviewing the deletion of this article, made by Justlettersandnumbers. I can't have access to the contents. Thanks in advance. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Lady Louise WindsorEdit

A topic that you may be interested in has come up. Specifically, there is a new discussion here by some editors about using an Infobox royalty or nobility for Lady Louise Windsor. If you could possibly provide a comment there, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your help! -- Blairall (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

EU 2014 electionEdit

Could you please explain how my contribution to this page is 'vandalism'. As far as I am aware my contribution was standard with other opinion polling pages, there was no opposition to my helpful diagram. Please explain your decision and maybe we can come to an agreement -- TP69 (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I already explained.[9] UKIP did not win 31 seats. DrKay (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your response but I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with the graph I inserted. It is about opinion polling, not seat numbers. If there is an error with the graph please let me know and I can fix it. TP69 12:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I can't figure out whether you're being deliberately obstructive or whether you're just incompetent. Hopefully, you're just incompetent. Look at the edits. DrKay (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Lets please keep this civil. I don't appreciate your tone of language. I would just like you to tell me exactly how I can fix my graph so it is suitable. Otherwise, I dont see what's wrong with it. Thanks. TP69 18:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
What am I supposed to think when you change 7 Labour MEPs in the table to UKIP, and then apparently don't notice despite being told three times what the problem is (once in an edit summary and twice here)? You are either deliberately evasive or incompetent. The file is a separate issue that I already dealt with 8 hours ago[10]. DrKay (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah right, I see now thanks for pointing this out, I must have overlooked this. I will make a separate edit if I rue-load the graph again. TP69 23:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Umbrellas in films categoryEdit

Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms DrKay,

I just noticed that you have removed all the pages in the "Films featuring umbrellas" category. Could you please let me know what rule(s) did I break and why was its complete annihilation necessary? I want all of my edits to be constructive and if the category in question has caused you any sort of offence, I would like to formally apologise for it.

Cordially, The creator of the aforementioned category — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:2413:8003:B380:D917:388D:9E9:60BC (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

That category was deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 10#Category:Films featuring umbrellas. DrKay (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit

Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)Edit

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

George I of Great BritainEdit

You just reverted my edit, as "unsourced; added since the featured article promotion". Well, all of my changes are absolutely correct but I am afraid I have only German sources for the German youth of George I which may not be helpful here. What would you suggest we do? The facts I mentioned should definitely be included, as the article is unclear on some facts, especially on the places where George I spent his youth, while other things seem to be superfluous (the Habsburg relation for instance was very distant, if at all, as all dynasties were somehow related to each other, but it played no role at all in his life).--Equord 16:57, 06 May 2019 (CEST)

British Royal familyEdit

I’m confused as to how my edit was repetitive? ~ Iamthecheese44 (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

He's already listed. DrKay (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed it further down the page. ~ Iamthecheese44 (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

About the article "Ruth Roche, Baroness Fermoy"Edit

Thank you Dr Kay for your message. The edits I made on this article were reverted and I do not understand why the link I added to this article is not valide. Did you open and read this link, which is a matrilineal ancestry of Diana, Princess of Wales (and so of Ruth Roche) or an informative link about the social background of Ruth Roche ? And may you explain to me why this source is not valide ? Thank you for your help. Philotam (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It's already cited to a professional genealogist who is well-respected in the field. Helen Reddy is an Australian singer. It is better to use the genealogist rather than the singer as a source for genealogy. DrKay (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you help me?Edit

I am a newbie, so can you share some tips A.M.SUHAIL (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "DrKay".