User talk:Keivan.f/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Sultans

Hello. I just reverted the edits of the IP 41.141.161.144, which show a remarkable similarity to the edits of the IP 41.250.161.203. I used WHOIS and found that the ISPs for both of these IP addresses are identical. Do you think that these editors are working in concert or are otherwise socks? Dschslava (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dschslava I have no idea. Maybe they're the same person. Anyway all of this has happened because of some information on a personal weblog that claims Mahidevran, Mahfiruz, Halime and many other sultanas are from the same family. The sources used on these articles don't even mention such theory but an individual who claims to be Mahidevran's descendant has another opinion on this issue. However there's not any source or evidence available to prove her claims. Keivan.f^Talk 08:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

January 2016

Your addition to Katharine, Duchess of Kent has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers Which addition do you mean exactly? Keivan.f^Talk 16:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This edit on 11 September 2012, where you copy-pasted a block of content from this page (I've linked to a version of it archived on 29 February 2012, to show that there's no possibility whatsoever that the royal household copied their content from us). Now I'm looking at some of your other edits, and I'm very concerned at what I'm seeing. You are an experienced long-term editor. Is it possible that you don't know that you cannot copy non-free content from external sources into Wikipedia? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

A bit more research confirmed what I had feared: that you appear to have made a habit of this. I've asked for a complete review of all your edits (please see the notice below). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Diana, Princess of Wales may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• on the anniversary of her death|work=Hello|accessdate=24 May 2015|date=31 August 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book<ref>{{Cite book
• 05/dunne200805|title=Two Ladies, Two Yachts, and a Billionaire|newspaper=[[Vanity Fair (magazine))|Vanity Fair]]|location=New York|author=[[Dominick Dunne]]|accessdate=11 October 2013}}</ref></ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

CCI Notice

Hello, Keivan.f. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It's just to ask whether you should continue to have the reviewer user right while this is being sorted out. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Keivan.f, I have blocked your account after reading through the discussion at ANI. I am not convinced that you understand the copyright policy of this site, a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations. Repeated copyright violations took place in spite of repeated warnings, and even while discussion was taking place. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa OK. Block me. But can I know the reason? Actually I was adding some information that were removed by Justletterandnumbers by copying it from the page's history. Go and check the article. He reverted my edits without a clear reason. I didn't add any of those copyrighted material. I was just removing sources that were marked as unreliable and adding the harmless material that was written by other users. For example take a look at the ancestry section. Some of the sources are unreliable. It would be very good if you could restore some information from the previous version. And another thing, for how long I will remain blocked? Keivan.f^Talk 06:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa You could at least answer my message. Look at the mess that has been made on "legacy" section. Why don't you restore some sections' material that didn't include any copyrighted information? Keivan.f^Talk 09:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not answering promptly; I was asleep. Cleanup is underway on Diana, Princess of Wales. We are trying to do this while minimizing the damage done to the article, and interfering as little as possible with additions made by other users. This process will take several days at least, and then I will go over the article top to bottom and clean it up as much as possible. Regarding your block, you will be unblocked once we are convinced that you understand our copyright policy and intend to carefully abide by it in the future. Please read the material at the policy page Wikipedia:Copyrights and the guideline Wikipedia:Plagiarism. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa Thanks for your response and explanation. I prefer to keep quiet from now. As you're an experienced user, I'm sure you know how to clean up this article and also restore harmless information again. About the copyright policy, as you had mentioned it above, I read Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Thanks again. Keivan.f^Talk 15:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa Hi Diannaa. I just have a question. For how long should I stay blocked? Keivan.f^Talk 14:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You are blocked indefinitely, because copyright violations are a major breach of policy. Using sock accounts or IPs like you did here to avoid your block greatly reduces the chances that you will ever be unblocked. — Diannaa (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa And what does that mean? Many other users have violated copyright policies but they're not even blocked. I can name some of them. So I can't understand your reasons for blocking me. And also according to Wikipedia's guidelines an indefinite block doesn't mean that a user must stay blocked forever. So I can become unblocked. The only thing that I want to know is that how it is possible. It will be really kind of you if you explain it to me. Because I'm really tired of this situation. Keivan.f^Talk 15:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa Anyway you could at least answer. I'm trying to solve this problem by talking and asking rather than insulting and arguing as many other blocked users do. But if you don't want to answer it's OK, I can get help from other administrators. It seems that you have mistaken blocking with punishment. As I said some other users who have violated copyright policies weren't blocked or at least they weren't blocked indefinitely. I had said it before and I'm repeating it again. My edits weren't vandalism. I was just unaware of copyright policies. But I'm familiar with them now and I still can't understand why I should stay blocked. Keivan.f^Talk 15:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not answering promptly; I had to go to work. The reason your account is still blocked is because you said on 31 January that you prefer to keep quiet for now, did not request an unblock, and did not give any indication that you now understand our copyright policy and intend to follow it in the future. I am now unblocking your account, as well as the underlying IP, because these conditions have now been met. I will be monitoring your contributions daily, and any further copyright violations will result in your being re-blocked. If that happens, it's extremely unlikely that you would be un-blocked a second time. Make sure that all content you add to the encyclopedia is written in your own words. Good luck and happy editing. — Diannaa (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa Thanks for unblocking but before I start to edit again I have to ask some questions. First of all, am I allowed to restore the previous versions of those articles that you reverted my edits on as they were block evasions? Another thing that I want to know is that may I use the sources that were removed from the princess's article as long as I rewrite their material in my own words? Besides I know some articles that include copyrighted material. Should I report them? (But they weren't expanded by me, I swear). Keivan.f^Talk 15:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• It's okay to resume editing using any sources, including the ones from the deleted edits, as long as all material you add is written in your own words in compliance with copyright law and the policies of this website. I will be watching your edits for copyright issues, and any further violations will result in you being re-blocked.
• Yes, you can and should report any copyright violations that you find. The place to do so is Wikipedia:Copyright problems.
• I have a problem with this edit, where you cited the Williamson article(s). The full citation is: Williamson, D. (1981a). "The Ancestry of Lady Diana Spencer". Genealogist's Magazine 20 (6): 192–199 and Williamson, D. (1981b). "The Ancestry of Lady Diana Spencer". Genealogist's Magazine 20 (8): 281–282. Did you personally view these magazine articles to verify that the content you are supporting is present there? If so, how did you do that, as the magazines are not available online, and they were published in 1981? Please don't restore this edit unless you have actually viewed the magazines and can say for sure the citations support the material. — Diannaa (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa Actually I hadn't used that magazine as a citation. User:DrKay however seems to have access to this source as he had added it in the ancestry charts. I can ask him. If he confirms that this magazine supports the material, may I restore that version again? And also what about the other articles like Kösem Sultan which you had previously reverted my edits on it as block evasion? Keivan.f^Talk 22:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You added the magazine as a source with this edit, even though you have never even seen it. That was a wrong thing to do. Please don't do that any more. You must check yourself that any citations you add actually support the content. Please don't re-add that edit unless User:DrKay has access to those articles and can confirm the citations support the material like they are supposed to do. You can re-add the other edits, though. — Diannaa (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa Very well. I'll ask him. As he's an administrator himself and also has created and expanded a variety of royal articles, I'm sure that he can confirm whether this source supports the material or not. If his answer was yes, I restore the previous version, if not, I'll re-do the other harmless edits again. Thanks by the way. Keivan.f^Talk 09:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. I finally asked DrKay to see whether the source mentioned above supports the material or not. And unfortunately his answer was no. The source is a list of ancestors with their dates of births and deaths. That's it. It doesn't contain information about the ancestors' nationality and lineage. Is it possible to restore the previous version and remove the sentence? Besides, I don't have access to any laptop right now to restore that version. It would be very kind of you if you could do it instead and then remove that part of the paragraph of course if you don't see any other problem on that version. Keivan.f^Talk 23:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know which sentence you wish to restore. Could you be more specific? — Diannaa (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa I had asked your permission to restore this version of the article ( before you revert it as a block evasion), and you said that there was a problem with the citation that I mentioned above as you doubted that whether this source supported the material or not (Diana was of English and remote German, Irish, Scottish and British-American descent). I explained the situation to User:DrKay and he said the source was a list of the Princess' ancestors and didn't contain information about their nationality or lineage. So based on his answer it could be used on the ancestry charts but not as a source for the sentence that I mentioned above. I just wanted to know if it's possible for you to restore that version yourself if you don't see any other problem and remove the sentence that is not actually sourced. Thanks. Keivan.f^Talk 09:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

We can't restore that revision any more, as people have worked on the page in the meantime. You are free to work on the page yourself, as long as you don't introduce copyright violations, or insert citations that don't back up the content, and follow all the other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Diannaa. I have checked the page's history and it seems that the contributions were only vandalism reverting. Nothing has been added or removed from the article. Anyway, if you really think that it's not possible to restore that version, I will re-do my edits in the future. And don't worry, I won't add any copyrighted information again. I got my lesson. Thanks by the way. Keivan.f^Talk 14:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ottoman Married

Do you know about married system in Ottoman? I look in Mahidevran page and it said Mahidevran was wife of Ottoman. Ayse Hafsa was muslim and not concubine too, but there is not sources says Sultan married her in formal ceremony. I think there are two kinds of marriage in the Ottoman dynasty, legal marriage and Nikah 'urfi. Ayse Hafsa and (posibbly) Mahidevran became imperial consorts with nikah 'urfi, and Hurrem with formal ceremony, that's why Hurrem received the title Haseki Sultan. When the legal marriage is no longer carried by the sultan after the 17th century, the title haseki sultan also no longer used. What do you think? Hafidh Wahyu P (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Hafidh Wahyu P Sorry for answering too late. To be honest I have no idea about that issue. Ayşe Hafsa was a free woman not a slave so she couldn't be in Selim I's harem unless that they were married. About Mahidevran, the sources inculde different contents. There are so many theories about her background and life with Suleiman I, so nothing is actually clear about the details of her life. Keivan.f^Talk 22:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Mahidevran

Can you please elaborate as to which sourced information has been removed by an IP for which you have asked an edit reverting the changes? IMWY6 (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Handan Sultan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman Turkish. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Murad IV into Rezang La. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa Hi dear Diana. Actually I moved some text into Kösem Sultan not Rezang la :) As of your explanation above I mentioned every time on my edit summaries that from which pages I was copying the texts. I think I just had to mention the username of the original contributor, is that all you wanted to piont out? And honestly I don't remeber copying some material within Wikipedia's articles. But if I remebered anything then what am I supposed to do? And what is the purpose of using the copied template? Where should I exactly put it? Keivan.f^Talk 23:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Kösem Sultan is correct; my mistake. The "copied" template goes on the talk page. It is usually only used for major copying. Please, whenever you move some material from one article to another, you need to mention in your edit summary where it came from. Diff of Kösem Sultan - there's no edit summary. Here is a sample of the edit summary you should use: "Attribution: this material was copied from Murad IV on April 1, 2016. Please see the history of that page for attribution." — Diannaa (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa Alright. Thanks for your response. And should I put the "copied" template on the article's talk page? Do you think that my contributions can be considered as major copying within the articles? Keivan.f^Talk 23:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's big enough to warrant it this time. — Diannaa (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa Also as you had said before I'm free to work on any article including Diana, Princess of Wales as long as I don't add any copyrighted material. My question is that how much a sentence must be changed to become suitable for adding on Wikipedia without causing copyright violations. For example a source has a sentence like this: "She and Prince Charles are sixteenth cousins through Henry VII." How should I change it? I just want to see how you change a sentence. :) Keivan.f^Talk 16:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I might say "Diana and Charles were distantly related, as they were both descended from Henry VII." — Diannaa (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi dear Diannaa. I have recently edited Diana, Princess of Wales. I just wanted to inform you. I have explained my edits and I haven't copied nothing from no where. I'm going to change the order of sections later, change some of the sources on royal duties section and rewrite some material that was removed in my own words. If you don't see any problem I want to start again from next few weeks. Keivan.f^Talk 14:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I found a good source for the relationship to the Duke of Marlborough and re-added it. Changing the wikilinks was not a good idea; Duke of Marlborough points to a disambiguation page, which is not what we want. We need to point to Duke of Marlborough (title). — Diannaa (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa Oh, sorry that was an accident. Besides, do you have access to Sarah Bradford's book or even the other books? I think you can expand the article more and so easily by using them :) Keivan.f^Talk 22:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I do have Bradford and Morton (his first book) and also one by Larry King called The People's Princess. Unfortunately none of these books is very scholarly as they do not cover some of the points we need citations for, such as the genealogy. I have limited time to work on this right now. Can you get anything at your local library? — Diannaa (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa Unfortunately I'm not even in my country, so I have access to nothing except the online sources. But those three books can be used to expand some personal information. Besides, I know that you're busy with cleaning the copyrighted material, so it will be good if you work on that article when you find some free time in the future. Thanks and good luck. :) Keivan.f^Talk 11:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The page gets 3 million hits a year. It's what I consider core content, the sort of thing the encyclopedia needs a really good article on. But yeah, I am one of the only people working on copyvio, so I have to focus on that right now. On the plus side, there's no deadline, as the books never have to go back to the library: I own them. So hopefully someday. — Diannaa (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa Yes it's one of the popular articles among the users and IPs. And I think cleaning the articles from copyrighted material will never end :) So it'll better if you try to edit other articles as well. Personally I want to turn D, PoW to a good or featured article and I have to rewrite many things again but it would be better if an experienced user also helped. Keivan.f^Talk 13:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa Also I again edited that article. You can check to see if anything is wrong. Keivan.f^Talk 13:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no problems. — Diannaa (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa Hi dear. Can you please check my recent contributions on Diana, Princess of Wales to see if there is any problem or not? Keivan.f^Talk 22:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

These edits check out okay. — Diannaa (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa Alright, thanks for your attention. Please check my recent edits on this article dated April 24, 2016 and also check it again tomorrow as I will edit some parts of it later. I just prefer to inform you sooner as you wished to check my contributions, so you could correct the mistakes, errors or any copyright violations of course if they exist at all. Keivan.f^Talk 18:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I have checked the edits and they are okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please check Haseki Sultan. I think there is vandalism in this article by account name ValideSultan. Also, (s)he also created article Meryem Ayşe Sultan who said that she was Murad IV's haseki and Mehmed VI's valide. Hafidh Wahyu P (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hafidh Wahyu P Sorry I wasn't on WP for a while but I checked the articles that you have mentioned and fortunately her edits are reverted. The article about that imaginary valide sultan has also been nominated for deletion. You can go and vote on its entry. If this user continues her vandalism, the I'll report her to the administrators. Thanks for your endless efforts to make WP better. Keivan.f^Talk 11:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a requested move at Talk:Ayşe Hafsa Sultan#Requested move 13 June 2016 on a page that you have edited in the past. You are invited to come to the talk page and give your input.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  01:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Muhteşem Yüzyıl

I have removed some plot description you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from https://m.facebook.com/geokahani.merasultan/about?expand_all=1 or elsewhere online. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words please. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa Really? I didn't know that it was copied from Facebook. The plot summary was changed by an IP who hadn't mentioned that the previous content was copyrighted, and the way he had explained the plot had made it look like an advertisement. I thought that restoring the previous version of this section would be a good idea. So how can I find out whether something is copyrighted or not when I'm restoring an old version? Keivan.f^Talk 23:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know you were restoring an old version. It's likely that Facebook copied from us in that case. Please leave a clearer edit summary in the future. I will put the content back now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa OK. Thanks. Keivan.f^Talk 23:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Muhteşem Yüzyıl Kösem

Hello,I hope you have received my query on Muhteşem Yüzyıl Kösem article's talk page.Since the second season's premiere date has been announced and more people than now will,very likely,visit the article in order to obtain more information I would appreciate your opinion on my suggestions. Chris Liak (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems I failed to type your name right and thus you won't have been notified but I left another query on MYK 's talk page.I would appreciate it if you shared your thoughts. Chris Liak (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Help!!!!

Some smartypants deleted all season one characters from MYK's page!!How will we revert it? Chris Liak (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I managed to revert the edit after all.Forgive me for overreacting. Chris Liak (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Alright :) Keivan.f^Talk 19:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Pandia?

Hi Keivan.f. I've started a talk page discussion here. I'd appreciate anything you might care to add to the discussion. Thanks, Paul August ☎ 13:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Keivan.f. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Title -> Succession

I reverted your changes on the Safavid monarch pages where you changed every listed title to fall under "succession" (e.g. [1]), as you went on to change it on all the pages of the monarchs, and provided no reason. What is your rationale behind these changes? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Hi. I thought the reason was obvious that's why I didn't provide an edit summary. These individuals were monarchs as you said. In comparison to the way the titles are listed on the other articles about the current and deceased monarchs, the regnal titles should fall under "succession". That's a general rule. So do you still oppose my changes? Keivan.f^Talk 01:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much for your prompt response. I've never seen such a "rule", but regarding consistency (which we want to maintain) you're most probably right. Want me to reinstate it? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Well, it's not a Wikipedia rule, maybe I should have called it a common method, but as you said in order to maintain consistency I also think that it's better to change the way the titles are listed on these articles. That's exactly what I was trying to do. ;) Cheers! Keivan.f^Talk 02:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Its all fine :-) Understood your intentions. Bests and take care - LouisAragon (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Beren Saat

Hey Kevien, how are you?? I actually wanna ask you that why you reverted my edits on Beren Saat's article?? I think that my edits were real and looks more promising. So I request you to redit my edits, because that is true and looks more good. I hope you understand. If you have any problem, reply me on my talk page. Thank you India Ka Raja (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@India Ka Raja: Hi. I'm fine, thanks, and I hope you're well. The reason was pretty obvious. Some of the things you had added were unsourced, including a middle name, Huseyin, which is originally a name for male individuals in Arabic, as you may know, and Turkish naming system is different from Arabs' and there's no reason to include her father's name as a middle name. The other thing that you did was removing some information from the infobox without a clear reason. You also added some information about Saat's travel to Palestine which was totally unsourced. You have to provide sources for everything that you add into an article in order to prove its reliability. Also using some words like Nikah is unnecessary. In English Wikipedia, it's much more preferable to use English words instead of Arabic ones. You also changed a sentence in "Career" section, which was already sourced and there was no mention of the thing that you had added to the sentence. Despite all of these, I restored some of your grammar corrections on the lead section. From now on, please try to find reliable sources and please don't remove things that are already sourced without a discussion. Keivan.f^Talk 06:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well everything that I added to her article have reliable sources, but since I have no internet package right now, so I couldn't include them, don't worry next time I'll edit with a source. By the way from which country you belong?? India Ka Raja (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, though Nikah is an Arabic word, It is widely used in wikipedia. India Ka Raja (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@India Ka Raja: Please try to find credible sources in English or Turkish published by suitable news agencies, newspapers, etc. I checked your talk page and also your recent contributions. Unfortunately, your edits may be reverted on the other articles as well. First try to read Wikipedia's guidelines to understand what a reliable source is, and refrain from changing or removing sourced information again. Our personal thoughts and ideas aren't facts, we cannot change the articles based on our own desires. Try to be a little bit more careful because you may end up reported or blocked. I assume you're from Pakistan. I live in the United States, and I was born in Iran. Keivan.f^Talk 06:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes I am from Pakistan, but I was born in New Haven, but how do you know that I'm from Pakistan?? And thank you so much for your kindness and support, I hope that you will continue guiding me. :) India Ka Raja (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@India Ka Raja: It was just a guess based on your contributions. I'll be glad to help you. Ask any question any time, and I will respond if I know the answer. You can also contact the administrators for more help. I wish you a good time on Wikipedia. ;) Keivan.f^Talk 11:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I've not made any particular edits on Pakistani "artists" wikipedia, but I have contributed to the Indian "artists" articles. Andway, do you know that how can I revert edits?? And can I ask you a personal question?? What is your real name?? India Ka Raja (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@India Ka Raja: I know, but I think I saw something about Urdu in your edits, and I just guessed that you should be from Pakistan. Anyway, my name is Keivan, which is a Persian name. Keivan.f^Talk 11:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@India Ka Raja: And about reverting edits, well it's not possible for you yet. You should give a request first, and then when your request is approved an administrator will grant you the permission to revert multiple edits. Keivan.f^Talk 11:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Persian??Are you a Muslim?? I don't know how to thank you, I've been editing wikipedia since 2012, but no body mentored me, but now I think that finally I've got a mentor. in you. And do you speak Urdu?? India Ka Raja (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@India Ka Raja: As I said I was born in Iran, and I can speak Persian fluently, but unfortunately I cannot speak Urdu as it's a whole different language with a different grammar. And as you may know many Iranians are Muslims, thus I think I'm considered a Muslim as well based on my background. Although everyone's free in having his own religion here, don't worry. There are dozens of Muslim, Christian and Jewish users and also users with other religions that always help the new users generously. Keivan.f^Talk 21:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained Removal of content.

Hi. Your this edit followed by this one in article Mahidevran, may be a good faith edit. Please always must add reason of removing anything (photo or content) that doesn't seems an act of vandalism or violation to WP policy. About the pictures removed, there is no doubt that those were indeed of Mahidevran's turbe, though I did see no source cited. You can always ask for citation rather than removing any photo, photos to the article makes them more interesting and adds significant details; So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the laws of locations where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Wikipedia because people find them objectionable or offensive. (See also: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.) I suggest you revert those changes and if inclined, remove them again but with "description" giving the reason of removal. 113.203.192.60 (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@113.203.192.60: That's not unexplained removal of content. Having multiple images of the same entrance to a tomb is totally unnecessary and only takes the space of the article. And pay more attention to the revision history next time because this edit isn't a removal of content. I just restored one of the two images that you had added and it's enough. There's no need for dozens of other images of the same tomb. And it's you who should read Wikipedia's policies. Calling a user's contributions vandalism without a clear reason can be considered an insult. And there was no need for an edit summary, as I was just removing a single image. We don't have to give a "lecture" for every single minor edit. Keivan.f^Talk 22:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please calm down, firstly, I did NOT add those images. And please read again I did not say you did the vandalism. I wrote "Please always must add reason of removing anything (photo or content) that doesn't seems an act of vandalism or violation to WP policy." And whilst I was about to remove the thread from your TP reasoning "Undid revision 757121274; So sorry I did not realize you moved the images and didn't remove it. Am removing my thread myself" but before I could do that I got your prompt response. Relax, nobody accusing you of vandalism. Mistakes happen. Cheers. 113.203.192.60 (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)