User talk:DrKay

Hello. I took a look at the discussion about the article Pedro Carlos of Orléans-Braganza and I mostly disagree with the arguments presented, which seem biased to me. I would like to know how and where I can reopen this discussion so that the article can be rewritten and with new sources (which I provided, by the way).

I don't know if I should argue here, but in case it's useful: the mere previous existence of the article and the discussion about whether or not it is relevant due to its connection to the former Brazilian monarchy are proof that the topic of the article is, in fact, relevant. After all, it's been almost 140 years since the fall of the Brazilian monarchy, and its heirs are still being discussed. The argument that initiated the deletion process seems to me to be entirely based on the fact that the republic is well established in Brazil and the monarchist movement is weak, but I don't see how that is relevant to the topic of the article, whose purpose is ultimately to inform. Furthermore, I disagree that a person cited in so many international and mainstream newspapers such as The New York Times, ABC, Estadão, G1, El País, etc., and who lives in an old imperial palace in the middle of the Brazilian republic, is so totally irrelevant that he doesn't deserve an article.

And as I mentioned, based on the arguments for deletion, such as the lack of sources that are directly about the person in the topic, in this case Pedro Carlos of Orléans-Braganza, I took care to add new sources specifically about him and that are reliable, for example:

• ^[1] This one from Vanity Fair about his marriage.
• ^[2] This one from Point de Vue about the dispute for the headship of the House of Orléans-Braganza.
• ^[3] This one had already been mentioned in the pre-deletion article and used in the argument for deletion as "it's about the sales of historical objects that Pedro Carlos made", and it's true. What the argument tries to expose is that it's from a mainstream Brazilian newspaper, O Globo, which calls him "Dom (D.)", which is an honorific, recognizes him as a member of the imperial family (extinct or not) and says that he lived in the former imperial palace of Grão-Pará. Three points that, together, make the topic of the article, the person of Pedro Carlos, worthy of note, at the very least.
• ^[4] Finally, this source was already mentioned and the argument for deletion goes as "Prince Pedro Carlos visited a museum". This clearly demonstrates his notability, since there would be no news, or even an article, about a visit by a non-notable person to a museum in the official media of the city of Juiz de Fora. It is worth remembering that Pedro Carlos is not a historian or museologist, so his notability comes from his ancestry and this does indeed confer notability on the individual. Von Burgundy (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

You can take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. DrKay (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, just did it and am notifying you as commanded. Von Burgundy (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey, so I did as you said and the discussion is well-developed now with many endorsements (from what I understood) for the re-creation of the article. So what should I do? Wait for some discussion closing (is there a deadline or something), re-create the article? Von Burgundy (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Please wait for the discussion to close or for the consensus to become crystal clear. There will be no need to re-create it if the result is for restoration, because your article has already been partially restored for the discussion and will be fully restored when or if necessary. DrKay (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Revert the edits I made, NOW! Spectra321578 (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi. This edit was different in that unlike the last time there was no copyright violation and far more was added to the article. One of the editors the last time thought that the article had potential but was not good enough at the time. I was not aware of the copyright violation rules at the time. It was not a copy of the deleted article as a lot was different about it. Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi mate, I've changed the name of the section to 'Expansion and renewed interest' to assuage the reasoning for your reversion of my edit. This, I think, goes well with 'Adoption and formalisation' and 'Decolonisation and self-governance'. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I wrote User:TenPoundHammer/ROT13 for a brief essay on what I call the "ROT13 precedent": namely, that the FAR process can be accelerated if the article is deemed sufficiently substandard. Do you know of any similar accelerated de-listings prior to ROT13, or any other times where this precedent was invoked? Also, do you think it's ready to move to Wikipedia: namespace like WP:HAMMER and WP:NOTTVTROPES? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't include Alpha Kappa Alpha because there is 2 weeks for each stage. The only other times I know of are when the article is already redirected or merged, such as Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tropical Depression Ten (2005)/archive1. On ROT13, the other two coordinators Cas liber and Nikkimaria accepted the speedy delist (per their comments on the review page) -- I wouldn't want it thought that I acted unilaterally! DrKay (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

AKA was a misread on my part. I added mention of you. Do you think this one's ready to move to something like Wikipedia:ROT13 precedent? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I see no problems with it. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I hope you do not mind but I have reverted the article on the Dominion of Pakistan back to the version of 19:43, 28 June 2025 (as edited by you).

• The version of 19:43, 28 June 2025 has an entirely understandable footnote: See territorial exchanges between India and Bangladesh (India–Bangladesh enclaves).

I appreciate that you tried to bring some sanity to the block-evading sock's efforts. And that you did this assuming good faith. I have done the same myself on other articles when trying to deal with impossible editors who later turned out to be block-evading socks.

The footnote that incorporated the block-evading sock's demands was cryptic, and did not help the user. We are better off with the 28 June version.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

That's fine. I wasn't aware at the time of my edit that the IP was evading a block. DrKay (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello @DrKay. I see that you insist on removing information with the only excuse of "unsourced" or "failed verification". That is not enough to remove all the information you want. You can either improve it or open a topic in the article's talk to discuss exactly what is missing. As Wikipedia recommends, "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced, the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text."

Most of it is sourced (even more than some similar articles) and what is not, is general history; and, if you have any doubt about the source, what I'm saying, or would like more specific sources, please ask me before removing it. If you persist in this approach, I'll consider that you are acting in bad faith, and we'll have to go to dispute resolution.

Greetings. TheRichic (Messages here) 20:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

My opinion is unchanged from the last discussion at Talk:Spanish royal family#"House of Bourbon–Anjou" listed at Redirects for discussion. DrKay (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi again! Sorry for the delay in responding, busy weekend. As for the matter, that doesn't answer any of my questions. So, since I don't see any constructive action, I'll open a discussion about it. Best regards. TheRichic (Messages here) 07:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I wanted to just let you know about my edit that you revered. I don't want to just revert it back without explaining myself, as a conversation works best.

I added a quote, about her imitate reaction to he husbands death. The quote was 'She just got up, and threw up'. It was said by her Great Grandson King Constantine II. He heard it from a Russian princess. I liked the documentary, which was on you tube. And while i would agree, YouTube should not be a sources freely used, if it a link to a documentary, of the Former King of Greece Speaking about his great grandmother, I think it passes the inspection. I have linked below the video. I admit it is possible that the link I originally provide was not with the timestamp, I am unable to do so on this talk-page, so the timestamp is 15 minutes and 23 seconds.

Link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILLNpfKFHU8 MarbleTangent (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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! Hi DrKay! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 00:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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?

• 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

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)