User talk:DrKay

TFA

Dabomb has selected the Munshi for TFA Thursday. I'm likely to be available for vandalism/unfortunate edit etc watch for much of the day but Thursday morning I have to go to DMV, my license is expiring and I must be there with my old one and my passport so they can take a new picture, which will not be flattering and God only knows how long I'll be there. I don't expect it to be a terribly difficult TFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing in my diary for that day. In the infobox, do you think we should say Rashidan was his first wife, add that he had a second wife name not known, or leave it as is? We could leave it, I suppose, and see if anyone spots the discrepancy. DrKiernan (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

We could say "possible second wife contemporary with first, details uncertain".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

In a footnote? DrKiernan (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be best. I think the sics are off base and misunderstand the purpose of sic.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I just put them in to prevent "corrections", but hidden comments should work. DrKiernan (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm home but a bit woozy.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That's understandable given that you seem to have been awake for the last 32 hours. Wikipedia isn't worthy of such sacrifice. DrKiernan (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes

The role of an infobox is to provide a simplified view of the important information contained in the text of the article, with the goal to encourage the reader to read the entire article. The infobox in the Queen Victoria article was updated to include the length of her reign because she is the longest reigning British monarch, which is an important piece of information. Truthanado (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The length of reign and the fact that it is the longest is in the lead and the body of the article already. Infoboxes should be kept simple. DrKiernan (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies

DrKiernan, I'd like to ask you a favor. I was reding the article about Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies and I noticed that in many moments it lost its focus on the main character in favor of others. In fact, the article looks too big for someone who had such a small role on Brazilian history. So I decided to remove pieces of the text and move it to the talk page. Why not simply erase them? Well, because I plan to use them on other articles, such as Consolidation of Pedro II of Brazil and Exile and death of Pedro II of Brazil. I'd like you to keep a close eye on my edits to see if they caused any harm to the text's comprehension. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just rescued one citation from an old revision, presuming it to be the right one. DrKiernan (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A few points I'd like to raise here:

1)The article was plagued before with a collection of information that looked more like trivia or that simply gave too much unnecessary detail. Take a good read at it again and you'll notice that it's far more straightfoward and enjoyable.

2) I removed the entire Pedro II x Aquila section. She was at most a bystander and the section looks like I was trying to fill space. Since I'm going to work with far greater detail on this quarrel on Consolidation of Pedro II of Brazil, reader will have the chance to understand better what happened... and in the appropriate article.

3) I also removed many sentences sourced on James McMurtry Longo. When I used books as sources, I always read what were the sources they used so that I'm sure that I'm inserting correct and reliable information. Longo used as source a book written by a Brazilian author called Gloria Kaiser. The problem is that this book is a historical novel, not a history book. Since I couldn't find the quotes taken from Longo in any other book I own, I'm pretty much sure he used fictional text by Kaiser as they were historical pieces. In doubt, I opted to remove them.

Try to read the article now and tell me what do you think. Regards. P.S.: Do you believe it's really necessary to have those books in the biliography each with a link to google books? The books can't be seen in full. Should I remove the links? --Lecen (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs, the changes look fine to me, but I'll try to find time to re-read the whole article again. I noticed you removing the Longo portions specifically and wondered if you'd decided against using it as a source. I think your rationale makes sense. As wikipedia articles typically reflect established consensus rather than a single view, I wouldn't worry about removing items that can only be found in a single source.

I think google links are very useful when backing a contentious or counter-intuitive point, but generally don't include them myself. For an article like this, the links are not essential and if you prefer to remove them I don't think anyone is going to complain. DrKiernan (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that some British monarchs' articles are getting newer and strange titles, such as Queen Victoria and Edward VIII. Why the "of the united Kingdom" was dropped? Wouldn't it be easier if all of them followed a simple standard?

Mary and Anne Oldenburg

Um.. excuse me, but what business did you have with my article? You "removed the rubbish"? Now it looks like it was written by a two-year-old, with unfinished sentences, no references etc. I am honestly thinking about reporting you. I suppose you just like to destroy good articles and turn them into rubbish. --Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It isn't "your" article. If you write rubbish, you can hardly be surprised when someone comes along and corrects you. Use reliable sources not obviously incorrect self-published sources. DrKiernan (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I used reliable sources, not self-published ones! Where did you come up with that theory? --Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You keep introducing inaccuracies. Darryl Lundy (the original source you used) is self-published. Ward is acceptable but it's old and out-of-date. Find-A-Grave is not a reliable source. DrKiernan (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

All right, I understand what you are talking about. --Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

IP range block

You just looked into this block for me. Could you let me know how you (or the other admins) determined this IP range to be "potentially hazardous"? I tried using the toolserver and other links but they didn't pull up anything in the logs.

I'm asking because I'm SSH tunneling into my private webserver which also hosts my webstore, and I had a few customers tell me they received malware alerts upon accessing my site. Perhaps my IP range is "tainted"?

Thanks. Kent Wang (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's blocked because the ip range is an open proxy. There's a policy [1] to block these as they are often used for abuse. DrKiernan (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Blade Runner on HBO

How am I supposed to source this fact? I have an old VHS tape from the late 1980s, with the film recorded from HBO. Can't exactly cite that in any meaningful way here. HBO's broadcast version was the International Cut for a very long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.18.115.2 (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can't find a reliable source it indicates that the fact (even if true) is trivial. If something is not of any notability, it is not relevant enough to feature in the article. DrKiernan (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's non-trivial on its face. The text as written implies that U.S. audiences were unable to see the International Cut until the early 1990s when the International Cut was made available on laserdisc and VHS. In fact, any of the millions of U.S. viewers who saw it on HBO were seeing the International Cut, well before the Criterion disc was released.