Jesseeeee 4 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 143: | Line 143: | ||
:Yes, I know. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay#top|talk]]) 18:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC) |
:Yes, I know. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay#top|talk]]) 18:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC) |
||
Given the article on Francis 2nd of the two Sicilies, (having an identical ecclesial status) does it not make sense to make the formatting identical? [[User:Jesseeeee 4|Jesseeeee 4]] ([[User talk:Jesseeeee 4|talk]]) 18:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC) |
Given the article on Francis 2nd of the two Sicilies, (having an identical ecclesial status) does it not make sense to make the formatting identical? [[User:Jesseeeee 4|Jesseeeee 4]] ([[User talk:Jesseeeee 4|talk]]) 18:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC) |
||
::There aren't many sources that mention it and those that talk of it do so in terms like "[https://ucatholic.com/blog/a-lost-cause-could-the-last-catholic-king-of-england-become-a-saint/ A Lost Cause..]" or "[https://catholicherald.co.uk/the-forgotten-canonisation-cause-of-king-james-ii/ The Forgotten canonisation...]". It's just not important enough to figure in the lead or infobox, which are for the main points only. Putting it there gives undue weight to something not many reliable sources cover. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay#top|talk]]) 18:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:57, 18 April 2021
Edward VII
In reference to your undoing my edit on Edward VII: I can see why you did it, but I wanted to explain the edit and perhaps you'll see my point. When I came across the original sentence, it struck me as unlikely, so I decided to check the source (Kenneth Rose's King George V, which can be read online at the Open Library). It's clear from the source that Edward VII is not objecting to the word in itself, but to its use with reference to Indians, that is, he's objecting to lumping the long-time civilized Indians in with the more primitive Africans of the time. That is rather different, to the extent of making the original sentence misleading. So I substituted the more general quotation to indicate his position. It's from the same page of the book, which is why the reference stayed the same. Robina Fox (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil
Monarchs who are currently on the process for sainthood and have been beatified or canonized by any Christian denomination have two infoboxes. The second infobox focuses on their sainthood. WeCareICare (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Only because you are edit-warring to include them. Remove them please. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." DrKay (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
King Charles I
Why did you edit Charles I's page, making inaccurate changes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England It is a matter of record that James VI inherited the English crown after Elizabeth I died heirless. It is therefore clear that the primacy of crowns, in order is Scotland, England, etc. The same for James VI sons. These pages are not a reflection of any particular political expediencey, but rather should represent facts as best they can. Please revert your inaccurate changes, Thank you Kez321 (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed, this is not the place for political posturing. Editors who use wikipedia as a battleground to push unsupportable nationalist viewpoints are likely to be blocked. DrKay (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Yes this is not a place for nationalist politics, but rather a place where accurate fact should be represented. I am requesting again that you revert your innacurate edits. Kez321 (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Jack Brooksbank
His page had already displayed arms for some time, I merely swapped the image with that from Brooksbank baronets. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- No, you didn't. You changed the caption to read 'Arms' instead of 'Coat of arms of the Brooksbank baronets'. That is misleading and wrong. They're not his arms. They're the arms of the baronets. DrKay (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
About your revert.
Mohammad VI is referred to as the "Commander in chief" of the armed forces I'm not sure how your revert is justified as it's not a piece of information someone would lie about or would require verification. Here are the links, I don't know to add them, you can do it yourself. https://www.maroc.ma/en/royal-speeches/hm-king-supreme-commander-and-chief-general-staff-far-addresses-order-day-royal-armed https://www.mapnews.ma/en/activites-royales/hm-king-supreme-commander-and-chief-general-staff-far-addresses-order-day-royal BlueLight05 (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- You've just provided two sources, neither of which supports the content of the paragraph. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, all content must be explicitly supported by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Margaret Tudor
I am not going to restore it, but contrary to your edit summary, it is not wrong that Margaret Tudor was ancestor of the Stuart kings of England and their successors. Agricolae (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Look again: I can't quite figure out whether you're saying Margaret Tudor was Edward IV's sister or whether Edward IV's daughter Elizabeth of York was his sister as well as his daughter. To quote: "Edward IV's daughter Elizabeth of York was mother of King Henry VIII, while Edward's sister. Margaret Tudor was ancestor of the Stuarts and subsequent English monarchs."[1] Either way, neither Elizabeth of York nor Margaret Tudor was Edward's sister. DrKay (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Commonwealth Day
Hi. I was wondering whether The Queen's Commonwealth Day Message should be included in Special address by the British monarch#Elizabeth II or not. The article on Commonwealth Day says that she addresses the nations every year, though it's not clear if it's always televised with her reading it (like this year's), or just a written message read on national TVs by others. I thought maybe you had some background knowledge that could help with the matter. Keivan.fTalk 23:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- It seems to be called an annual message in the media, so I don't think it should go there, even if it is the first time it's been televised. DrKay (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Verification
please check possible connection between accounts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/C.J._Griffin and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Psychologist_Guy, it can be sock puppet. Star Fiver (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
143.255.206.229
The IP address 143.255.206.230 is using 143.255.206.229 to continue adding false information on articles with stuff about Tinker Bell, Audrey Hepburn, Natalie Portman and other nonexistent stuff. I think we should make a range block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B02B:8635:D517:77A3:D199:35E (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Now there is a semi range to handle 143.255.206.228/30
Rulers from Africa at coronation 1953
I have always tried to add african kings and chiefs at the British coronation but you always remove them why? Theafricanroyalfamilies (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
But there are photogtaphic proofs of them at the coronation, English media didn't pick them up but i clearly identified them through my intensive research. You also say i should not use flags of countries that didn't exist at that time, yet i see countries like kuwait which received independence way past 1953 yet you have allowed them to use a modern country flag Theafricanroyalfamilies (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- You've been told multiple times to add sources or cite your additions. All content must be cited to explicit reliable sources, as explained at Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research, and on your talk page multiple times. DrKay (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Philip's death & your reversions
My life's not going to change with your reversion, but Prince Philip was mentioned about two dozen times in the article. Activist (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- He was her husband. He should obviously be mentioned. Coming here with a sarcastic comment is inappropriate. DrKay (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I apologize but I was not yet done with that edit. Could you please give me another 10 minutes to complete it before your next reversion? Silly-boy-three (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- You provided 3 sources, none of which said anything whatever about his death. It is therefore in breach of Wikipedia:No original research: sources that say nothing about a death cannot be used to support content about a death. The earlier hospital stays and his pre-existing heart condition are already covered in the preceding paragraph and repetition is unnecessary. DrKay (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- I yield. I really don't have the time for this. Your call. But it seems to me that almost all of the last paragraph of the previous section titled "Retirement," should be in the "Death" section. Have at it. Silly-boy-three (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- I despise 'Death' sections. It's the sort of section that one only finds on amateur sites like wikipedia. Professional encyclopedias don't have such sections, and I would favor merging it with another. DrKay (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, death is a subject that in and of it's self, seems to be unencyclopedic. Still, when in Rome..... Cheers. Silly-boy-three (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- I despise 'Death' sections. It's the sort of section that one only finds on amateur sites like wikipedia. Professional encyclopedias don't have such sections, and I would favor merging it with another. DrKay (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- I yield. I really don't have the time for this. Your call. But it seems to me that almost all of the last paragraph of the previous section titled "Retirement," should be in the "Death" section. Have at it. Silly-boy-three (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
For next time...
User:DBD/London Bridge DBD 17:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Titanic
Just to let you know, I added in Inquiry statements of Mrs Lucien Smith to the article, in regards to her husband's words, so I am not sure why you deleted it; unless you explain it fully or didn't realize?79.68.150.165 (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC
- As I mentioned in the edit summary, primary sources are generally deprecated on wikipedia. Articles should be based largely on reliable secondary sources. DrKay (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Have A Nice Day
Hello how are you ? can you review this article [[2]] if it is ok can you move it to Article space thanks a lot --Istanbul1453Istanbul (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Prince Louis of Battenberg
"Queen Victoria and her son King Edward VII, while he was Prince of Wales, occasionally intervened in his career..." Why??? If the subject of their intervention is sufficiently important for the lede, so should be a reason for it. Manannan67 (talk) 06:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Manannan67 (talk) 06:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- So, you decided to make one up and stick in the lead? See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. A reason is given immediately next to the clause you've quoted; it's in the same sentence. DrKay (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's not OR when it's explained in the third paragraph with citations. Did they routinely intervene in the naval careers of foreign princes or request that they be detailed to their royal yachts? Louis wasn't just some miscellaneous prince they felt kindly towards. If it's in the lede it should also be found somewhere in the text. That quote is not. Manannan67 (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
HMS Bubble, et al
Your slight rewording of my edit is an improvement. Thank you. I do have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about 'Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh'. I was myself going to write it thus, enclosed in double square brackets to link it, but I stuck with 'The Prince Phillip' (i.e. with the definite article) because this is his correct title after all. Has there been a consensus on wikipedia to consistently use the (incorrect) 'Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh' style across the project? And, if so, do you know why it was decided not to use the correct form? Familiarity? Danger of constant editing due to people erroneously thinking it was wrong? Thanks Fortnum (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's one l. The official website uses it: The Queen announces the death of her beloved husband, His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (my emphasis) as does the government broadcaster Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, won widespread respect for his steadfast and constant support of the Queen. It's not an incorrect form, just one of several options. DrKay (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Selliya
I AM SELLIYA DrKaY I AM REALLY SORRY REGARDING MINOR EDITS,SINCE I WAS NEW TO EDITING I DONT KNOW MUCH ABOUT IT,I WILL NOT DO THE MISTAKE AGAIN.MY EDITING OF GRAND DUKE LOUIS IV WAS BASED ON HIS RELATIONS ,THE INFORMATIONS WHICH WAS EDITED ARE TRUE AND REAL,SO PLEASE YOU CHECK THOSE FAMILY RELATIONS ONCE AGAIN .DONT DELETE MY EDITING ,THANK U I WILL ALSO RECTIFY BY GRAMMAR PROBLEMS,BUT THE INFORMATION WAS TRUE
- See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, for guidance on how to cite content and ensure that it is explicitly supported by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Content that is not generally mentioned in sources should not be introduced. It is unencyclopedic to load extraneous details about relations into the leads of articles. DrKay (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Image of the wrong person on Wikipedia Commons
Good evening DrKay,
I hope not to bother you this evening.
But I wanted to bring to your attention to an image on Wikipedia Commons, which is claimed to be Maximilian von Götzen-Iturbide, when in reality it's an image of Gennadiy Chyzhykov, President of the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Here's a link to the image on Wikipedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prince_Maximilian_von_G%C3%B6tzen-Iturbide.png
Links to Mr. Chyzhykov's Twitter and biography. https://twitter.com/gchyzhykov https://ucci.org.ua/en/about/management/gennady-chizhikov
Thanks for taking the time to read into my thread!
Have a pleasant day, JayzBox (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Volumes
Hi DrKay: I'd suggest you not bother yet with removing "Volume" from all the book citations; there's a rather heated discussion going on at the moment as to whether the acceptable text in the parameter should have been changed. (See Help talk:Citation Style 1) The issue seems to revolve around the thought that journal volumes and book volumes should be treated differently, and the recent change means that they're now treated in the same way. So the removal of the word "volume" from a book parameter changes the display, so that it now shows a bare bolded number after the book's title — hardly anything intuitive with regards to a book! (i.e. is it the volume? the edition???) Ideally, the bare number should be followed by the volume's title, e.g. Handbook of the Birds of the World. 1. Ostrich to Ducks. But it might be best to see how the discussion shakes out before making too many changes! MeegsC (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Partial block, maybe?
I noticed you left a comment on CyberSecurityGuy's talk page regarding their addition of wikilinks. They're continuing with the unnecessary pipes and linking of commonly known words. I think a partial block from mainspace to get their attention might be in order. I've been lead to believe there's issues with notifications on some mobile devices so I'm guessing that's the case here. – 2.O.Boxing 10:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Ah, he's been blocked. Nevermind lol – 2.O.Boxing 10:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
James II
His given title as "Servant of God" was never revoked by the Church. Such titles do not have a time limit in the Catholic Church. Jesseeeee 4 (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Given the article on Francis 2nd of the two Sicilies, (having an identical ecclesial status) does it not make sense to make the formatting identical? Jesseeeee 4 (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- There aren't many sources that mention it and those that talk of it do so in terms like "A Lost Cause.." or "The Forgotten canonisation...". It's just not important enough to figure in the lead or infobox, which are for the main points only. Putting it there gives undue weight to something not many reliable sources cover. DrKay (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)