FYI User:170.150.12.243 has again added post-nominals indiscriminately to many articles, including articles where the change was reverted before. I left a warning and reverted most of them, although there were articles involving diplomats to the UK and people associated with dominions where I wasn't sure. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She does not need to be a religious leader its just the fact that was her religion Versailleslover123 (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A wikipedia-wide request for comment determined that the parameter was inappropriate for people who were not religious leaders. DrKay (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I’m wondering why you split the section off from the main as I have seen it on many other articles. ThatFungi (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These sections are split off for most (if not all) British monarchs. There are a large number of depictions, so there is sufficient material for stand-alone articles. If kept in the main article, they would be low-value sections with unclear inclusion criteria. See MOS:POPCULT for further guidance. DrKay (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for the explanation. The show already has an article so I'll address it there. Thank you again.

ThatFungi (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I'm not a fan of hatnotes, but starting two days before the coronation, page views on Princess Charlotte's article (the earlier Princess Charlotte, Princess Charlotte of Wales (1796–1817), for the benefit of your talk page stalkers) are 20,000 or more, a large multiple of what was there before. I would like to think that there is large public interest in a woman who died in 1817, but I wonder if there really is. It seems more likely they are coming in search of a different princess by that name, and perhaps we should give them the means to go their way more speedily. Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The rise in views is matched across all royal biographies[1]. Hatnotes are deprecated for unambiguous articles per WP:NOTAMB. DrKay (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Edward III of England for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cultural depictions of William III of England is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural depictions of William III of England until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello administrator DrKay, I am here to notify you of the violation of the 3 revert rule by user Gugrak on the page "Catherine, Princess of Wales". He also removed accurate and relevant information including citations for the same page under the heading of " Patronages and Interests". I hope you will go through the matter carefully after visiting the page and going through the page history. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc: Again, it would be helpful if you discussed your issues with my edits on the article talk page where I've started a discussion per WP:BRD, or at the very least addressed them on my own talk page instead of canvassing on other users talkpages, especially making false accusations of a breach of 3RR. Please contribute to the discussion on the talk page where we can't find a consensus.Gugrak (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr Kay,I’m K Dhriti Reddy. I am here to notify you the deletion of the page Samuel Chatto. You we’re against the creation of this account since it was recurring part from Lady Sarah Chatto. I supplicate to you to not delete the page of Samuel Chatto.I hope you Understand me since it is my first page that I created and I may not have done it well. I hope you would help me through this page. Thank you K Dhriti Reddy (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr Kay DrKay (talk), please see this new source see lignes 7/11 Narrative of the Execution of the Queen of Scots The text I started to read today is the excerpted long letter sent by Robert Wingfield to his uncle, Robert Cecil, the equivalent of the prime minister in Queen Elizabeth’s time. The young man was sent to Fotheringay for the express purpose of witnessing the execution and describing it to his uncle, and also presumably the Queen. I guess that is the reason why he takes such pains to note down absolutely everything, including Mary’s dress and appearance on the last day of her life. He even describes her garters and stockings, which I presume he didn’t have the opportunity to see while she was alive, in which case… creepy. Mary’s attire is rich but sombre, mostly in black. She is no longer the beauty admired by the French court – she is still very tall (she was probably nearly 6 foot tall, unusual especially for a woman in these times), but also quite stout, double-chinned and has to wear a wig because she’s lost her hair. She was 45, so hardly an old woman yet, but she had a lot of health problems (some people suspect porphyria, a genetic disease supposedly haunting the Stuarts) and I guess she had not had enough exercise for the last twenty years, taking into account that the only .exercise for the woman of her social standing would be horse-riding. Mary accepts the news about the day of her execution with Christian resignation, although she cries a lot. As I wrote earlier, she apparently did retain her fashion sense even on the day of her execution. She also wears many religious emblems, including the medallion “Agnus Dei” (Lamb of God), which is printed in the NAEL as “Angus Dei”. I wonder if it’s a misprint of the NAEL’s typesetter or Wingfield’s mistake. Her servant Andrew Melville (again, mistakenly called by Wingfield Melvin), falls down on his knees and cries, saying he is going to be the bearer of the worst news ever. Mary also crying, comforts him, saying that she welcomes death as the end of her troubles and that the good news he is going to bear is that she died like a true queen and Catholic. She says she always dreamt about uniting England and Scotland and asks to tell her son James (who never saw her, I mean consciously, since she left him as an infant) that she never did anything to hurt Scotland’s interests. Then she addresses the gentlemen around her, asking them to settle the accounts with her servants and to treat them well, to which they agree. She also asks them to allow her servants to witness her execution, but the earl of Kent protests, saying that he’s afraid they are going to get hysterical and give her even more pain, or they are going to indulge in superstitious practices like dipping their handkerchiefs in her blood. The English are apparently very afraid of creating relics and making Mary a martyr. https://readingnorton.wordpress.com/2015/06/23/narrative-of-the-execution-of-the-queen-of-scots/ SeriousHist (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply] Dr Kay, I don’t know if you remember me, I was the one who added important contributions missing in the Elizabeth Tudor article ( North America Plus the East India Company) ; here I want to discuss the issue here because you are the main contributor of the great article Mary Queen of Scots ; First the source is on page 289 not 288 if it is available online please check it line 21 ; 289 with a pillow, but not to have put her to so open a death. pwas the opinion of the King of France and of others. ha sigaling the death warrant Elizabeth had gone as far as she was prepared to go. She expected someone else to take the responsibility and the blame for dispatching it; and the wretched Davison, perceiving that it might fall to him to be made the scapegoat, spread the responsibility to Burghley and other councillors. They quietly sent the warrant off. Tuesday, February 7th, 1587, Mary received warning that she was to die the next morning. She showed no terror. She denied complicity in the Babington Plot, inferred that her death was for her religion, and forgave her enemies, in the full confidence that God would take vengeance on them. wE Much of the night she spent in prayer. About 8 a.m. the gif sheriff and his company escorted her to the Hall of the Castle, where arrangements had been made for the execu ton. She was dressed all in black, a veil of white lawn over be halt, a crucifix in her hand, her beads hanging from her side, She was forty four, and, save for the fleeting days after her escape from Lock Leven, had been a prisoner fo Just on twenty years. The charm of youth was gone; shs was corpulent, round-shouldered, fat in the face, and double-chinned; her auburn hair was false. epalled at the at at parting from her servants, Please check DrKay (talk). Second I made a mistake in the name it is Robert Wingfield of Upton https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Andrew-McLean/dp/0954474856 Or https://wingfieldfamilysociety.org/execution-of-mary-queen-of-scots/ Or https://www.abebooks.co.uk/9780954474850/Execution-Mary-Queen-Scots-Eyewitness-0954474856/plp Or https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18400586 http://www.librarything.com/work/19696972 Lord Burghley was his uncle Thank you SeriousHist (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeriousHist (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DrKay. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Hello, DrKay. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Can I get started for free? 2600:8800:3984:D300:5859:E2BC:9D15:FD3E (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrKay. As I was going through the list of redirects that I have created I realized that I had made one titled Her Majesty King Charles I. Obviously it is incorrect and not useful. Since it's one that has been recently created and has no in depth history associated with it as a page, I wanted to ask you as its creator to delete it. I think it falls under WP:CSD#G6, so deleting it would cause no problem. Best. Keivan.f^Talk 23:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DrKay,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to bring to your attention the concerning situation surrounding the Wikipedia article titled "Mohamed Yaacob." The page has been facing relentless vandalism, with its content consistently reverted without proper sourcing or explanations.

Given the persistent nature of these acts, I would like to humbly request your consideration for article protection to prevent further disruptions and maintain the article's integrity. Such action would ensure that accurate and reliable information is presented to Wikipedia users.

Thank you for your time and dedication as an administrator. Your assistance in addressing this matter is highly appreciated.

Best regards, Arthur Hirai (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr. Kay, Sorry that I bothered you with an email; I was looking for this option but found the other instead. Here's a repeat message: Hi DrKay, I appreciate the need to verify changes but I don't make them indiscriminately. Re: Rachel Chiesley, Lady Grange – she's easy to miss in the archives because of the vast variety of spelling options but her baptism record is there. How can I send you a screenshot? Or search again under this spelling: 1679, Cheislie, Rachell, parents John Cheislie and Margaret Nicolson. Best, Tablethree

I've found that record. It gives the date as the 4th, which is the same as the article. DrKay (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Thank you for your kind help in solving the matter of the article name for Princess Alexandra. BillClinternet (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I recently nominated this draft with a trivial history for speedy deletion because in my opinion it clearly fell under G6 and met the criteria for cleanup and maintenance. Even the draft's creator stated in his edit summary If Camilla, verified as having the title "Duchedd of Edinburgh", expand this draft page to a redirect page. Well, we do have the redirect Camilla, Duchess of Edinburgh which means that this draft at the moment is redundant and should be deleted. But does it seriously have to go through a deletion discussion? Keivan.f^Talk 13:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 24 September 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September songs

my story today

Thank you today for the article, rewritten in 2011, and kept up to FA standards! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrKay. This article by The Guardian about the Queen Mother contains the following sentence: According to her previous biographer Hugo Vickers, she had wanted to attract the Prince of Wales – later Edward VIII – but he brushed her off and she married his younger brother, George, instead. Do you have access to Vickers' biography of the Queen Mother? I need to verify that this is actually correct but I don't have the book at the moment and since you have contributed to the article over the years I thought you probably could have some insight. Also, this quote is attributed to her in the article: "I hate this classlessness thing," which she is supposed to have said to Woodrow Wyatt but I was wondering if this can be found in Wyatt's journals. In short, I wanted to ask for your opinion before making any major additions. Please let me know what you think about the article and its claims. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 21:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That theory is included in Wallis Simpson's article and arises from a letter sent by Diana Mosley to her sister. Wyatt's journals are used in the article and can be borrowed at https://openlibrary.org/books/OL10556981M/The_Journals_of_Woodrow_Wyatt. DrKay (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't duplicate the defaultsort - I sorted Ireland before Russia and Spain - unlike where you are now. Icairns 2 (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, I need to inform you that I have lodged a grievance based on your actions earlier today. Consider this my informing you of that. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) This wasn't a suitable notice that ZeroAlpha87 has created an arbitration enforcement request naming you. It has already been removed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector, I have sought better advice on how to create a suitable notice, though, and so watch this space. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ZeroAlpha87: you shouldn't, this is not a matter for arbitration enforcement and you will be wasting your time. Arbitration enforcement is related to specific areas that the Committee has identified as contentious topics, highly volatile subject areas known to have a history of conflict off Wikipedia which frequently cause disruption here (topics like the Israel-Palestine conflict, the India-Pakistan war, the wars in the Balkans, and the Irish civil war are examples), or for specific issues where they have previously made a ruling. Whether or not to use honorifics in a listing of formal royal honours is a long way off from any of these topics, and anything you try to post about it at WP:AE is going to be removed immediately in the best case scenario, which is if a bunch of disgruntled admins don't have a few choice words for you first (since you're also wasting their time).

You've started a good first step in dispute resolution by opening a discussion on the article's talk page. You could advertise that as a formal request for comments if you want wider input. If you find that you're not getting a satisfactory response there, you can try whichever process listed Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests that best fits your complaint. Your own behaviour will also be scrutinized in any of those processes, you should note.

If you insist on filing an arbitration enforcement request anyway, you can use ((AE-notice)) for a standard notification message. Each noticeboard that requires notification has a similar template, you can find them in Template:User noticeboard notices. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I opened discussions on all three articles' talk pages, yet the user about whom I wish to complain shut down two of them seemingly on a whim. I do not wish to go down an inappropriate route, much less waste my time or anyone else's; however, two things need to be borne in mind here: 1) I do not yet have the technical expertise on how to navigate Wikipedia's minefield of policies and coding methods; and 2) I refuse to stand by idly when an administrator is not open to the very ideals that he/she is meant to promote. Nobody is above reproach, I am sure that you would agree, and that extends to me, naturally. An independent adjudicator would, I believe, see from the messages' exchange that I was, and remain, willing to engage in healthy debate so long as it is productive and that the communications actually make sense. What I have come up against, though, does not paint the service in its best light, and suggests to me that administrators operate with impunity. In my opinion, what has occurred is a serious abuse of privilege (and responsibility) by the user in question, for no other reason than that he/she can, as far as I can tell. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it can be frustrating for an inexperienced user: Wikipedia is a very large project with many rules and conventions for specific situations, and being knowledgeable in all of them is basically impossible. I think you're misinterpreting DrKay's intent here, though.

There is a longstanding convention that editors should not start discussions regarding the same issue on multiple pages. In extreme cases we call this forum-shopping, where an editor posts the same problem in many places hoping that one of them will give the answer they want, or "asking the other parent" when a discussion concludes and they don't like the answer so they post it again somewhere else. I don't think you meant to do that, though. Best practice if you have an issue that could affect many pages is to start a discussion somewhere central, such as the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, and you can leave neutral notices on other pages inviting interested editors to participate in the main discussion. You need to be careful not to give the impression that you're only inviting editors that will support you; we call that canvassing. I've just left a neutral notice here, and you can see some others on that page. I think that's what DrKay intended to do: close your duplicate discussions and instead leave a link to the discussion that already had comments, so that any future comments would be in the same place. They may have been a little blunt and probably could have made a better effort to explain that at the time, and they probably should not have closed discussions started by a user they were in a dispute with, but closing duplicate discussions is fairly standard practice. Nobody should expect you to know that with ~300 edits.

But you are absolutely correct that nobody is above reproach, and administrators are bound to higher standards of accountability. If you want to make a complaint about DrKay's actions, the place to do so in this case would be the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, which is a sort of community noticeboard for interpersonal conflicts. But if I can give you some advice from personal experience: don't. That noticeboard is called the "drama board" for a reason, and many of the editors who patrol it are openly hostile to newcomers and those who don't have a perfect understanding of policy, and will often find inventive ways of turning your complaint back on you. It's really a last resort if you really can't solve your issue any other way. I've been here for 14 years and I avoid it like the plague. Discussion with the user you're in conflict with nearly always produces better outcomes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector,

I am most grateful for the time that you have taken to get me to see things from a different perspective. I note what you have advised about steering clear of the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, but find it shameful that 'newbies' could be treated so flippantly by those more experienced; I suppose that the Wikipedia community is nothing short of a microcosm of the world at large, in which those that should know better often act the worst.

I maintain that my point about having consistency in those articles did not deserve to be shot down in the way that it was; it struck me as improper that an administrator could get away with this, hence my actions since. Far from one person being allowed to rule absolutely on the matter that I raised, I have just checked the Royal Family Order of Elizabeth II talk page, and, aside from DrKay's view, there is one arguably neutral stance and one that appears to support mine; therefore, we shall have to see how it pans out.

Finally, I reiterate my thanks to you, as I have been impressed by your mediatory influence, concise yet thorough explanations, and, most importantly, your ability to communicate without getting someone's back up.

ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You requested "no further communication" between us. Posting on my talk page and starting new discussions relating to me isn't the way to go about that. There is a longstanding consensus on wikipedia that if a user requests no further contact, then no further contact is made. So, whingeing about a lack of contact, when that's exactly what you asked for, is unpersuasive to say the least. I was merely doing as you asked. DrKay (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I requested 'no further communication' based on your not answering (whether through choice or lack of understanding, I could not tell) my actual question; I found that we were going in circles, achieving nothing, despite my best efforts to get you to look beyond the honorifics' stance, about which I was never really bothered, anyway: I would happily have returned the articles to their previous versions if my point about how conferees should be styled had not been despotically cast aside. Thank goodness for administrators such as Ivanvector, however, whose explanation, advice and, above all else, tone are commendable. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone is far from commendable. Note your insults, accusations and obvious contempt here and elsewhere. On this page alone, you say I'm a despot, improper, shut down discussion "on a whim", "not open to the very ideals that he/she is meant to promote", "the worst", abusive, shameful and flippant. Let me be clear: Do not post to this talk page again unless required to do so by policy. DrKay (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrKay, I reinserted the photo of the artwork and found a footnote that explains to what extent Catherine is the inspiration. If you find the photo "ugly", delete it again. But thought it was appropriate because of "tea" and because she is a important Portuguese female artist.

Best regards, 87.170.195.78 (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the relevant content: Tea-drinking is already mentioned in the article. The caption is a repetition.

On the promotion of your friend's/employer's art works: We don't do that on wikipedia, see WP:COI. Your source is a primary source that is not independent of the artist, and so consequently does not meet our threshold for Wikipedia:Reliable sources or the threshold for inclusion in the article.

On the artistic merit, or otherwise, of the sculpture: I have no and made no comment. I never said anything about it being "ugly", nor would that be a relevant consideration. DrKay (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI?! You're just assuming the worst of me. I'm sad... I am not from the Braganza family, I don't know Vasconcelos personally, I'm just interested in art and suffer when an article is poorly illustrated. And I even just drink coffee lately ;-) I hereby assure you, I have no COI — whatsoever!

The photo of the tea pot artwork I just found here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Catherine+of+Braganza&title=Special:MediaSearch&go=Go&type=image

As I did found the painting of Catherine and Charles yesterday:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_II_of_England&diff=next&oldid=1175875381

If you are interested in art, I will give you an article. Small gifts help keep a friendship ;-): Lord Rothschild: ‘I loaned Lucian Freud £1,000 so the Krays wouldn’t cut his hand off’ → Quote from this The Independent article: "A wonderful Portuguese artist called Joana Vasconcelos, who for 25 years has been updating the arts and crafts concept to the 21st century with irony and humour."

Please, Assume good faith#Demonstrate good faith and keep up the good work... with humour. Cheers, --87.170.195.78 (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated George Moore (novelist) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DrKay,
I found a recent photo of Princess Alexandra of Flickr taken in 2012 that has a 2.0 Generic license and I'm looking for someone to upload it for me. It's pretty decent quality and is better than the current one if you ask me.
Here's the link: [2]
Thanks,
BillClinternet (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has a "no derivatives" license, so cannot be uploaded to wikipedia. DrKay (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't notice that as I usually just read the title.
Thanks
BillClinternet (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Specific to many articles and the one one the monarchy of the UK spec. MOS might define the number of paras in an intro - not sure how it defines para length.

It is pretty text dense with long paragraphs. I understand many academics do use long paragraphs - but I do think some of these thick extensive chunks of text are likely easily split for readability - cheers - just my op. BeingObjective (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Matthew Brettingham for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrKay, I came across this article and noticed a need for CE. Regarding your revision of some of my edits yesterday, I have a question:

Potatoes were essential to the expansion of the [[cottier (farmer)|cottier system]]; they supported an extremely cheap workforce, but at the cost of lower living standards. The underlined portion feels clunky and redundant to me. Would appreciate your suggestions to improve.

Thank you for your diligence. As I continue to CE, I will return here if I have more questions. Marxistpoodle (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how [potatoes] supported an extremely cheap workforce, but at the cost of lower living standards can be translated as landlords forced farmers to subsist on increasingly smaller amounts of land while increasing exports to England. The sentences are totally dissimilar. DrKay (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sentences are dissimilar. I found the original sentence to be redundant within the rest of the section. I also think the subject of the sentence being "potato" deflects blame for the expansion of the cottier system from landlords onto an inanimate object.

I believe that my edit expands the meaning of the paragraph by explaining how the introduction of the potato crop allowed landlords to further exploit the farmers by forcing them into a monotrophic diet and how that ties into expansion of the cottier system. Marxistpoodle (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been monitoring the situation at Alexandra of Denmark and it appears that users YorkDr and Luke Darby are the same person. The editing patterns, the information they are trying to forcefully insert into the page, etc. all appear to be the same. As an administrator, I think you are in a position to investigate this matter and put an end to their potentially disruptive behavior. Keivan.f^Talk 19:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I've made the templates of David I, George III, Victoria, Edward VII, George V, George VI consistent (by adding King, Queen, Emperor, Empress), with the templates of Elizabeth II & Charles III. I've contacted @Keivan.f: & @Fry1989: about this. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done the same, with the templates of the consorts. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. Before I make a submission to Heads of former ruling families given I had two warnings prior on the page, I wanted to verify with you. I did research on this topic and not place my personal opinion on the matter to ensure neutrality, but I found two legal claimants to the throne, Alexander Prinz von Sachsen and Daniel von Sachsen. Article VII of the Polish Constitution of 3 May 1791 made the throne hereditary for Frederick Augustus I of Saxony and his descendants. The only citations I could find are both articles from the "royalcentral.co.uk"[3][4]. Thanks. JayzBox (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A source from 1791 cannot be used to support claims made after 1791. royalcentral is a self-published group blog and therefore not a Wikipedia:Reliable source. DrKay (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay A few weeks before I put forth the suggestion of creating a William, Prince of Wales Taskforce on the article's Talk Page given my status as the article's fourth highest author and third highest contributor in terms of edits. Given your status as an administrator and also your own significant contributions to the article, I thought that it would be good idea to have your opinion on this matter. I would not have added this to your Talk Page if you had replied on the article's Talk itself. Anyways expecting your repky on this. Regards MSincccc (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your talk page post but didn't comment because it is not something I would join or oppose. DrKay (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay Then should I go forward assuming that you like Keivanf. has agreed to the proposal? By the way, thanks for the reply. Regards and yours faithfully MSincccc (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed. You don't need my approval to proceed. DrKay (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay You had previously made it known that you are not opposed but still won't be joining the Taskforce. Though joining it might be a matter of personal choice and at your discretion, given your status as one of WP's administrators and that you are a featured article coordinator, I would appreciate if you could temporarily join the Taskforce as a mentor and provide valuable advice so that we can accomplish our primary objective at this point-to get William's article to FA. I hope you will help and your reply will be a positive one. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you recently reverted my edits adding the titles and styles of Paul of Greece? Could you please just expand on your reasons for the revert? Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 13:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The four I already gave are sufficient. DrKay (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they weren't, I just simply asked if you could expand. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Therealscorp1an: The page has multiple sfn and harv reference errors. You've added short footnotes without adding details of the books. DrKay (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I edited down some of the reams of domestic trivia they've poured into the article, but they've put it all back, with an edit note reply: "I do not understand how details make an article a hagiography" – this while removing a Chips Channon-cited sentence on his early life as a rake. If scalpelling verbosity amuses you, you may want to look at the edits. MisterWizzy (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I saw the edit you made regarding the spelling of Frederick vs. Frederik, and thought inform you of a discussion regarding this very topic incase you weren't aware and were wanting to add your oppinion. You can find the discussion here. EmilySarah99 (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I was wondering if you could move the page on Jefri Bolkiah, Prince of Brunei to Prince Jefri Bolkiah, and the page on Princess Azemah of Brunei to Princess Azemah Ni'matul Bolkiah. I couldn't find any previous discussions concerning the titles of either pages. In terms of reasoning, "Prince of Brunei" is not a substantive title. The move would also make it consistent with the pages on his siblings Prince Mohamed Bolkiah, Prince Sufri Bolkiah, and Princess Masna Bolkiah. The other page should also be made consistent with Princess Rashidah Sa'adatul Bolkiah, Princess Majeedah Nuurul Bolkiah, and Princess Fadzilah Lubabul Bolkiah, none of which use territorial designations. I thought maybe you could help with the situation. Best. Keivan.f^Talk 22:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DrKay@DrKay you recently left a notice on my talk page accusing me of using multiple accounts and being another user without providing any explanation (Notice: Using multiple accounts of User:QQxawn).

I don't appreciate that, and looking between the two accounts and editing history, other than adding and removing my username from Wikiproject:royalty members, I really cannot see why you accused me of that or coordinating offline with that user (??). If you were curious for an explanation and you could have asked on my talk page. But put simply, I was unsure if I would be receiving multiple notifications about the topic and have other interests, and didn't really care to become an official member of the Wikiproject.

Regardless, I don't think that's enough to accuse any user of sockpuppetry. Hopefully you understand why this is perceived as being inflammatory to me and would appreciate a more neutral approach to any concerns moving forward. Thanks, Cibrian209 (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a template message. I'm not responsible for the phrasing, which by the way is the 'soft' version for when suspected editors are acting in good faith and doesn't even directly accuse you. It says may and points you at the guideline only. Frankly, your over-reaction makes you look more suspicious not less. DrKay (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I, like most people, get offended by unwarranted false accusations and frankly, aggressive responses. If that makes me look more suspicious in your eyes, so be it and feel free to monitor if you believe so. However, thanks for your explanation. Best, Cibrian209 (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr Kay

Thank you for your many valued contributions to Wiki – great work.

I understand your comments to my recent amendments on Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh – well noted with thanks. Although you reverted my changes en masse (presumably for ease), I hope you won’t my revisiting them accordingly, that is, should you be agreeable to my refining these improvements ofc! So in the spirit of Wiki collaboration, let me outline what & why to the relevant changes in advance, if okay:

• Prince Edward was created Earl of Forfar & she then assumed by courtesy the style Countess of Forfar - "making her" is definitely not correct / "becoming" less formal or "styled" is the correct parlance.
• St John Service Medal (with bar) – typo.
• Queen Elizabeth II Platinum Jubilee Medal qv. https://www.homesandantiques.com/antiques/royal-family-medals - so many were issued no paramount reference source exists (however HRH wears this medal at official public events for all to see).
• Most Venerable is the correct prefix for the Order of Saint John qv. https://ordersofsaintjohn.org/orders-of-st-john/mvo/ - "Venerable" is a colloquialism originating from how the Knights of Malta refer to their protestant confrères...
• Linking Sash before the Order of the Eagle is a relevant and useful link surely?
• The caption to the image of Sophie at Kandahar shows her wearing combat dress – “dressed” is not the usual way of describing this...
• CoA: accept most of your comments - very helpful. But with regard to the grant of arms – “include” (not “apply”) is the correct terminology;
  nor is the blazon correct (whereas it states ‘’for Rhys-Jones’’ for the sinister shield it omits any mention of “for Prince Edward” or “Prince Edward’s differenced Royal Arms” or what I stated initially – no biggie, but some note is required;
  capitalization of the colours and charges is correct blazoning in heraldry;
  lastly and definitely not least! is that her arms should display the augmentation of honour for a GCStJ in chief – Wiki’s image was created before she was appointed a Dame Grand Cross of the Order of St John and this is to be updated. To see her latest arms, qv. https://twitter.com/littlemuoitom/status/1669680859564371978 (this is not preferred link but at least you have a visual).

Very many thanks for your sterling work & I trust the above comments are to your satisfaction.

Best Primm1234 (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When updating the article, please remove the tagged source and replace it with one that supports the article content rather than just removing the maintenance template and retaining the invalid source. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Kay

Done! And, I included a couple of extra explanatory links, such as "remainder" & "impalement" - hope okay...

Best Primm1234 (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't link common words or use decorative icons, thanks. DrKay (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Oum Sum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cambodian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 2 March 2024 (second appearance). Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for the 2008 article! - On Smetana's 200th birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect James Erskine, Earl of Mar and Kellie (1949- has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 3 § James Erskine, Earl of Mar and Kellie (1949- until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the reversions if those were new on Akihito, Naruhito, etc. I actually arrived at the issue because they were being removed from articles with shoguns listed, Emperor Meiji and Emperor Kōmei. In at least the case of Emperor Kōmei, which is on my watchlist, the shoguns were already there well before January. Perhaps there is a case to be made for dealing with the postwar and/or post-Meiji Restoration governments in different ways, but I think the shoguns should stay on the earlier articles. Best, Dekimasuよ! 08:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i restored some notes for turkmenistan from an old revision here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_totalitarian_regimes&diff=1208464271&oldid=1207768933 but when you click on note a and note b it dosent work, meybe it needs reintegration with the other notes Gooduserdude (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use <ref group=note> not ((efn)). DrKay (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay Is it possible for a single article to be co-nominated for Featured Article Status by two significant editors in case both want to be credited with the article being upgraded to FA status. In that case, what should be done, given both are the top two editors as well as among the top five authors of the concerned article? Your advice will be valuable. Looking forward to knowing from you,

Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. When you click on the initiate the nomination link, a pre-populated window will open. Part of the code in that window is <small style="font-style:italic;">Nominator(s): ~~~~</small>. Add the co-nominator as done here. DrKay (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay The discussion you started yesterday on the talk page for the article William, Prince of Wales has reached a new stage. We have one user clearly opposing the first sentence claiming that the other 14 thrones also need to be mentioned. They also want to override at Charles III's talk page. You are invited to the discussion, that's all I wanted to say and look for yourself what you can do about it. Looking forward to knowing from you,

Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DrKay the page above has been susceptible to disruptive edits made by IP users in the recent past which led me, being its most significant author and second largest editor, to request autoconfirmed semi-protection for the article. The protection expired earlier this month since when the disruptive IP edits have returned. A user has granted pending changes protection to the article for 3 months but another disruptive edit was made to the page by an IP user after the protection settings were revised. Louis' siblings pages have been granted semi-protection for an indefinite period and they are very much stable. I felt that this article should have similar protection settings. Looking forward to knowing from you, Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can maybe do something once the current pending changes protection expires in May, but I would prefer not to undo other administrators' actions at this time. DrKay (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay I authored a new page titled Wealth of Elon Musk this morning. Although it has undergone review, it doesn't appear in search results when I look for it. Could you please enlighten me on the cause for this? Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay A request for a new consensus as to how William should be described in his article's lead has started. Please join in the discussion and put forth your views. Looking forward to knowing from you, Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 17:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need support to move Sean O'Malley.Marty2Hotty (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marty2Hotty: You might not aware, but you can NOT do that to ask/inform/persuade another editors to support what you have nominated for - see Wikipedia:Canvassing. Kindly stop immediately. Cassiopeia talk 00:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Christopher of Bavaria, aren't redirect targets generally supposed to be bold? jonas (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm facing resistance from Miesianiacal in Monarchism in Canada (see [5]) and Republicanism in Canada (see Talk:Republicanism in Canada) against posting recent polling results from the last two years that suggest support for the monarchy has fallen behind support for a republic. This is despite the fact that the Monarchism article cites several polls - all of which are at least 15 years old. He insists any reference to the result of the newer polls is POV. There really should be a combined RFC on both articles. I don't really have the skill, time, patience, or interest in doing so so if you or someone else is able to do so it would be helpful. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wellington Bay: I have started a discussion at WP:ANI#Monarchy of Canada about this kind of behavior. Thanks for the email. DrKay (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay Would you please help me out with one issue if possible? I am seeking guidance not canvassing around or trying to prove anything. Would you listen me out? Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will listen, yes. DrKay (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay Is there any reason for me to be held up for each of the 3 GAs I have successfully nominated? An editor still has concerns regarding it which you will find at the GA nominations talk page. I am one of the top five authors as well as a frequent editor to each of those three articles. Please verify so that the other editor can understand. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is that for articles like Sherlock Holmes, where Palindromedairy is clearly a major editor, you raise your desire to nominate the article for GA status either at the personal talk pages of major contributors or on the article talk page. Allow a reasonable interval for any objections to be raised, or for editors to agree a joint nomination, before starting the GA nomination. For any article for which I am listed as a major contributor, you may assume that you have my blessing to take the article to GAN without further input from me. DrKay (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay No my request is that are the three GAs attributed to me valid as SerialNumber 54129 has raised concerns about it. I wanted this to be resolved. Further, Chris Troutman said that I was trying to game the system which is not the case nor was I canvassing around. Also he believes that my claims of being a significant author to Catherine and William's articles are not realistic despite me being the second highest editor and among the top five authors. I have left the Sherlock Holmes issue behind. The focus is now on these royalty related articles which you yourself know have significantly contributed for over two years. I was seeking assistance being a middle-school boy. Hence awaiting your views on the same. Regards and would like to know from you soon, MSincccc (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's an agreed definition of "significant". In some cases there will be a clear main contributor, who will probably expect to be consulted or included in any nomination. Other articles are more of a joint effort. Personally, I don't have a problem with your nominations, see no evidence of impropriety, and can see that you are listed as a top editor in the page statistics. I am happy with any process that assists with article quality. I think it's more a question of being mindful that other editors might expect to be consulted if they've put a lot of effort into a particular article. DrKay (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay But I am the prime author of Ivanka Trump's and Charlotte's articles as well as being among the top five in terms of edits made. Furthermore, Keivan was fine with my nomination for Catherine's GA given he's the only author above me who frequently works on the article. How can then another editor then raise such questions and rather aggressively, if I can use the term. One final convincing response and I will not bother you any further. Thanks for your time. Looking forward to hearing from you once more. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of impropriety personally. In my opinion, the accusations against you are unconvincing. DrKay (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay Just one last doubt here. Do you feel that I should renominate Prince George for GA as the reviewer AndrewPeterT has been inactive for almost two days. I would like to know from you on this matter. Have a great day and thanks for your words. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would wait a further 5 days. An absence of a couple of days is not unusual. DrKay (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going by by statistics as per Xtools can I nominate Karlie Kloss's article for GA now that the Prince George article is on hold because of the reviewer's inactivity. Just wanted to confirm it from you, a more experienced user and an administrator, before nominating given I am both the largest author as well as one of the top editors. I do not want to be accused of drive-by again. Looking forward to knowing from you. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, my advice would be to pre-announce your intention to nominate any uncertain cases on the article talk page to give other editors of that page time to comment. DrKay (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At present none of the article's top five authors have edited the page in the last six months except for me. Further, I am also among the top editors to the article. I fixed all the discrepancies in the article. Would leaving a message on the talk page and then nominating do? MSincccc (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see now at GAN that "drive-by" nominations are defined as "if the nominator is either the author of less than 10% of the article or ranked sixth or lower in authorship, and there is no post on the article talk page". DrKay (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so. I am both the highest author as well as attributed with 18.9% of the article at the time of writing. Further, no revisions have been made to the talk page in the last 10 months and as I previously put it the other 4 authors have not edited it recently the most recent by anyone among them being in September 2023. You can verify my claims through XTools as well. In that case, can I go forward with the nomination? I have left a message on the talk page though. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't have a problem you with nominating. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay The reviewer for Prince George of Wales' GA assessment has been inactive on English Wikipedia as a whole for the past three days since taking it up. Furthermore, he has only 1,038 edits attributed to himself despite his account having being created in 2013. This shows that the user is rather inactive. Your previous advice to me was that-I would wait a further 5 days. An absence of a couple of days is not unusual. But given this user's editing pattern and contributions history, should I renominate the article with today's date so that a new reviewer picks it up? I will inform AndrewPeterT if that should be the case. Looking forward to knowing from you. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would wait a week and then follow the process at WP:GAN/I#N4a. DrKay (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay As you know both I and Keivan are among the top five contributors as well as the top two editors to the article William, Prince of Wales and given that, have been considering an FAR for the article in the near future. I recently transcluded a peer review for the article with both our names attached to it. Knowing that you are one of the three FAC coordinators, just wanted to seek your blessings for the entire process. Thanks for your time and advice in recent days. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. DrKay (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How long should a peer review normally last before I close it and nominate the article for the actual FAR? Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is guidance at Wikipedia:Peer review/Guidelines#Step 4: Closing a review from the peer review side. I would recommend waiting for at least one review before nominating at WP:FAC because review at FAC can be intense and a peer review beforehand is recommended. DrKay (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I had let the peer review run for a fortnight or say three weeks and make the suggested changes, if required , before I co-nominate William's article for FAR. Will that do @DrKay? Yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For FAC. Yes, though you could probably close the peer review earlier if you got one thorough review. DrKay (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well would you yourself be leaving a few valuable suggestions at the peer review discussion page? It will be greatly appreciated if it could be possible. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you happen to have access to this book by John Harvey Pinches ISBN 978-0-900455-25-4? I have looked for it everywhere but it's not available on any of the platforms from which I usually get my books. I thought maybe you had added it as a reference to Philip's article or at least were in possession of it. Looking forward to your response. Keivan.f^Talk 21:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't own a copy. I had access to a library copy some years ago but I no longer live near to that library. Sorry, DrKay (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]