User talk:Keivan.f/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grandchildren of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sophie of Prussia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Princess Eugénie of Sweden and Norway

Hello! What is your reasoning, please, for moving the article to remove one of the countries from her title? --85.194.1.37 (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. The rationale behind moving that page could be a few different things. First of all her father is primarily remembered as a Swedish king, as he's not the ancestor of the current Norwegian royal family. On the other hand, Louise of Sweden, Princess Margaretha of Sweden, and Princess Märtha of Sweden were also Norwegian princesses but they were prominently members of the Swedish royal house. Keivan.f^Talk 01:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Re your comment on the move proposal, it always makes for much more pleasant Wikipedia work if we try not to mention each other or aim our article talk page comments at each other but just comment on content, not on contributors. Try it, you, too, will probably like it! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear SergeWoodzing, I'm sorry if you are bothered by the way I commented on that article's talk page, and I assure you that I wasn't aiming at anyone. I just wanted to mention a policy, but I'll try to do it in a better manner next time. Keivan.f^Talk 01:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Great! Every good wish. Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, that didn't last long. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: You responded to my comment and I responded to yours. That's called constructive discussion. We are not arguing and aiming at each other. We are trying to find the title that best suits the article. :) Keivan.f^Talk 17:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and my point is that all such work is more constructive and much more pleasant if we never mention each other or direct any comments at each other at all. Doing that is hardly ever necessary and just makes us focus on other users, not on the article issues. This beneficial tactic takes some self-training, but I've just about learned how. Try it! You'll proabably see what I mean. Also, repeating what someone else said is always unnecessary and never constructive. All that does is lengthen a discussion, uselessly. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Julia Stephen

To be precise, Julia Stephen had three notable grandchildren, Julian, Quentin and Angelica. Of these, only Quentin Bell is included in the family tree and infobox, and that is because he is mentioned several times in the text and in the bibliography, since he was a historian. Infoboxes are also navigational aids. In summary, two relatives is surely not a long list of "ancestors or descandants"? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see

Hello, Keivan.f. You have new messages at Talk:Grand Duchess Alexandra Georgievna of Russia.
Message added –Ammarpad (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.

Princess Eugenie of York and education

Hi. I believe that your addition to the education section violates the BLP (biographies of living persons) policy. It's neither neutral nor verifiable. If we were citing every instance that somebody spread rumors about somebody then what was the difference between Wikipedia and a marketplace? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard naar (talk • contribs) 15:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Richard. I don't believe that it violates BLP. Rumors that make their way to major newspapers somehow become noteworthy. By the way what you did was against the policy of neutral point of view. We are not here to praise her merely because she's a royal. You probably should have paid more attention to the structure of my sentences before reverting my edit. I won't revert your edit as I don't want to engage in an edit war but I'll definitely put a message on the article's talk page and ask what everyone thinks about the addition of those information, and we will act based on the consensus. Keivan.f^Talk 15:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You are right, we are not here to praise anybody (or to spread conspiracies). I like your suggestion. Let's see what other users think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard naar (talk • contribs) 16:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Retarded prol scumbag adding retarded plot summary to sophisticated page.

Please can you help me get something done about this guy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Third_Murder&action=history

I keep reverting his boorish nonsense but he keeps reverting it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.166.178.43 (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

This guy is nuts.

He keeps calling me a prol and telling me to get back to sesame street because apparently my plot summary isnt subtle enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.133.99.39 (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join WP:RRTF

Hello, Keivan.f! I'd like to invite you to join the Rick Riordan Task Force (formerly the "Percy Jackson" Task Force) of WikiProject Novels. We work to improve articles related to Rick Riordan and his books. Please, check out our project page or contact me to learn more! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC) *Please note that membership is open only to full users. If you currently edit with an IP address, please consider creating an account today! We would love to have you.

Externalities page

Hi,

When I deleted "electric vehicle" from the list of examples of positive externalities, that was not vandalism, but correcting a factual error in the text. Driving an electric vehicle is not a positive externality, but rather a behavior that produces fewer negative externalties than some other behaviors. To see why this is not a positive externality, consider the case where the electric vehicle driver stays home and cooks lasagna rather than venturing out. This would have the same positive consequence of not increasing air pollution (since no vehicle is being driven), but it would be absurd to suggest that cooking lasagna constitutes a positive externality. Frankly, this example is particularly egregious, since driving a vehicle of any variety contributes to traffic congestion, which is a negative externality.

Best,

Matthew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.57.250 (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't made any contribution to that page, thus I have no idea what you're talking about. Wishing you the best. Keivan.f^Talk 21:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Lady Diana Spencer

I am not sure why you keep reverting my edits to Duchess of Cornwall and Duchess of Rothesay. Diana, Princess of Wales was styled as Lady Diana Spencer before her marriage to the Prince of Wales, and therefore should be titled as such in articles. See Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer as an example. We use her title of Lady when referring to her before her marriage to Charles, Prince of Wales, and we refer to her as Diana, Princess of Wales after her marriage. If you could please put Lady back into the list of duchesses, that would be great. I don't want to cause a revert violation or edit war. Thanks. CookieMonster755✉ 14:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I also note your revision to the Princess of Wales article, And the other ones were also princesses before marrying their husbands, yet we have excluded the title "Princess" from their names for the sake of simplicity. Actually, we don't use Princess because they were not commonly referred to as such (e.g. Joan of Kent, Catherine of Aragon, etc). We should use Lady as in Lady Diana Spencer, because it was a title she had and was known by. I do understand the argument for simplicity, though. Cheers! CookieMonster755✉ 14:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi CookieMonster755. Well, you actually mentioned a good example above. While looking at the articles about royal weddings, I realized that Queen Mary has been referred to as Princess Mary of Teck, and the Queen Mother as Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. You are apparently in favor of adding Diana's maiden title, and I'm not going to oppose your changes again but I believe that all of them have to be mentioned by their maiden titles in the table. That's what I should have done when creating some of those tables a long time ago. Keivan.f^Talk 16:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hassan Shamaizadeh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iranian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Elçin Sangu

Hi Keivan.f, The reason I took these away from Elçin Sangu, they are minor awards. After doing the work and researching them, the only one out of them, which is worth anything is the Golden Butterfly award, and that is mentioned in the lede. The rest are clearly not notable. scope_creep (talk)

Abish Khatun and Lal Kunwar

Can you please merge the articles Absh Khatun with Abish Khatun, and Imtiaz Mahal with Lal Kunwar. Retrieverlove (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Retrieverlove Are they the same figures? And what do you want the main titles of the merged articles to be? Abish Khatun and Lal Kunwar? Keivan.f^Talk 02:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes they are same figures, and I want there title to be Lal Kunwar and Abish Khatun. Retrieverlove 03:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Retrieverlove: Per your request the articles were merged by User:DrKay. Please make sure that you won't create duplicate articles in the future again. Keivan.f^Talk 01:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Archive

Hi, it seems your talk page became too large. you are welcome to archive your talk page. You can have this done automatically for you - simply place {{subst:User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup}} at the top of your user talk page and old messages will be archived after 1 month.for more details you can see WP:AATP. regards Déjà vu • ✉ 00:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@DejaVu: Thank you for your kind offer. I have noticed that the page has become really oversized but unfortunately I didn't find enough time to go through this page and read the whole process. I'm glad that you informed me on how to do it though. Many thanks. Keivan.f^Talk 01:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Meghan Markle

Hi

I think that there should shortly (after her impending marriage) be a separate "Ancestry" section on Markle (her page). The (UK) Times newspaper has published a report on her ancestry and references her direct descent from Sir Philip Wentworth and King Robert the Bruce. I have added The Times citation to the appropriate section . Thanks175.33.22.145 (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Kelsey Grammer

Hi,

Just wonered why you removed details of Kelsey Grammer's parents from his wikipedia page?

Jonathan

I didn't remove them entirely form his page, I just removed their names from the infobox. As I mentioned in my edit summary, they are not notable enough to be included in the infobox, and, on the other hand, they are private people so it's not really appropriate to have their names at the top of the page. That's is why not all of his children are listed there either. We only include the notable ones. Keivan.f^Talk 16:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

De-diarizing

Would you like to help me de-diarize the article about Prince Harry? It's a mess, sadly. The articles about his parents, to which you have significantly contributed, are something to look up to. Surtsicna (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: I totally agree with you. Some parts need to be removed and some parts need to be organized. I would love to work on it, but I have to take care of my final exams right now. I'll be back in 10 days though, then we can work on it together. Keivan.f^Talk 12:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Engagement ring of Lady Diana Spencer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prince Albert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

St George's Chapel, Windsor

Hi, with regard to this, just in case it comes up again, it's not an abbey! Hope this helps, best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle

I noticed you removed the move-protection icon from this article's talkpage. If you could let me know the guideline/policy page that says the article gets the protection but the talk page does not or I'd appreciate it (since I restored it). Shearonink (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It's the main article that we are protecting not the talk page, as the main page is our concern. I don't remember which guideline it was but I have never seen the protection template being added to the talk pages. Keivan.f^Talk 03:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Both pages were recently vandalized via being moved to spurious titles. But, I just took a look at the editing options available on both the article and its talkpage...apparently, if the article itself is move-protected that then extends to the associated talkpage since the move option is not available at the present time for the talk page either (I guess it doesn't matter if the page protection code appears on the talk page or not?) Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Arms of the Duchess of Cornwall

Hey, I noticed your revert for the Arms of the Duchess of Cornwall, the royal calligrapher Tim Noad released a version of her arms featuring the circulate - [1]. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nford24: Thank you so much. User:DrKay was insisting that the official version does not feature a ribbon. I'll send him the link and probably revert the file back to its previous version. Keivan.f^Talk 15:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Layn R. Phillips, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Graham Phillips (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Vanessa Trump

Could you please use edit summaries, and clearly indicate your references, especially in BLPs? --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Alex Shih (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Fergie

Can you explain why the nickname of the Duchess of York should not be in the opening sentence of the lede? The Manual of Style is quite clear that this is where it can and should go. --85.211.212.153 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

First of all, you need a reliable source to prove that she is widely known by that nickname. As long as I know, Fergie is a nickname for people with the surname Ferguson, and not just Sarah. Even if you have such a reliable source, it won't mean that it can be added to the first paragraph. Sometimes the formal name is more preferable. Examples include George VI, also known as Bertie, Elizabeth II, also known as Lilibet, Prince William, also known as Wills, and Princess Margaret's husband Anthony Armstrong-Jones, also known as Tony. You can add the nickname to the body of the article in an appropriate section though. Keivan.f^Talk 17:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Her nickname is not a contentious matter and therefore does not require a source to prove that it is not. There are a dozen sources alone already in the article that use it in their titles, and the article itself mentions a dispute with the recording artist known by the same nickname. I invite you to type 'Duchess of York' into Google and count the articles that call her Fergie. That she is popularly known as Fergie is as obvious as the sky being blue.

As for nicknames of the other royals, with the possible exception of "Wills" none of the examples you give are in general use amongst the public, and indeed they are all mentioned in their respective articles as only used amongst close family and friends. Fergie on the other hand is known by that nickname worldwide. Here's an American publication saying she is known as Fergie in 1992,[2] and here's an Australian publication saying she is known as Fergie last month.[3] I invite you to show how your example Queen Elizabeth is referred to as 'Lilibet' with the same regularity and ease?

Fergie is indeed a nickname for people with the surname Ferguson, and notable such people are listed on the page Fergie. But those articles are not relevant to the one we are discussing. --85.211.212.153 (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

That still doesn't justify adding her nickname to the first paragraph. Take a look at Johnny Depp for example. His widely known as Johnny but there's no mention of that name in the first paragraph. I can give you numerous other examples if you wish. There's no such rule that nicknames must necessarily be added to the first paragraph. Best wishes. Keivan.f^Talk 02:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) For the record, I agree entirely with the IP and feel it is appropriate that this very well-known nickname should be in the lead. I do think, though, that this discussion is more suited to the article's Talk page than here. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Monica Brewster does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. I don't have an issue with your rationale for reverting my revert. But I have an issue with you not explaining your edits via an edit summary in the first instance. How about starting to make use of that input field? Schwede66 21:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries often missing

Hi! Just a friendly reminder that we are all supposed to use to use edit summaries. They are very helpful and actually save us all a lot of time. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia (again)

Here you copied text from Kate Middleton effect to Meghan Markle (cut diff) without attributing the source. I see that you're already aware of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and you have even been blocked for copyright problems before. Please be more careful. @Diannaa: since she was dealing with it before. – Joe (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It would have been much better if you had checked the history of that page before warning me. I'm not the main contributor, and all I did was merging the existing information. That paragraph shouldn't have been placed in an article about the Duchess of Cambridge. The appropriate place for it would be the article about Markle herself. Keivan.f^Talk 20:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It makes no difference. If you copy content from one Wikipedia article to another, you need to attribute the source article or you lose the attribution required by our copyright license. What am I supposed to have checked? – Joe (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

And I had already said that I was "merging" the content in my edit summary, yet I only forgot to mention the name of the original article. It's not like that I claimed the paragraph was written by me. Keivan.f^Talk 21:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning the source article in the edit summary is a critical step, as that's what produces the link to where the attribution can be found. If you forget this step in the future, please make a small edit with a second edit summary giving proper attribution. The suggested format is "Attribution: content in this section was copied from example on July 9, 2018. Please see the history of that page for full attribution." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thanks for the explanation. Keivan.f^Talk 21:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I noticed it because I wrote half of what you copied, Keivan, and while it's a trivial contribution, it is still my contribution, and honestly it's grating to see it in another article with no trace of my name on it. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, but myself and the other contributors to Kate Middleton effect also have a non-negotiable legal as well as moral right to attribution. I assumed it was an honest mistake and came here to tell you about WP:CWW, so it was disappointing to see that you have already had it explained to you. Multiple times. It is even more disappointing—disrespectful even—that you still don't seem to have bothered to read and understand it. I suggest you start paying more attention to what your fellow editors are saying to you (the dozen requests to use edit summaries, for example), or I think you will end up blocked for good next time. – Joe (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it was me who found sources for that paragraph you are so concerned about, as half of it was already unsourced up until one month ago. And it is really funny that you think that I don't pay attention to what other people say. How would you possibly know that? It is really disappointing that after being here for seven years and contributing to numerous articles and expanding various pages, I get treated like this. So, instead of threatening me, try to assume good faith because that was an honest mistake; it wasn't intentional at all. And fortunately, I have done nothing wrong to get blocked for. Thank you for your suggestion. Keivan.f^Talk 21:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Maiden titles

I agree with your latest edit to Julia, Princess of Battenberg. I added her title of "Countess" back into the info box because your previous edit deleted the only mention of it from her bio and, as I mentioned in the edit comment, her maiden title was important to make sense of her subsequent title. She is virtually unique, among pre-WWI morganatic wives, to have been elevated to the title of Prinzessin: the Teck, Hohenberg, Urach and Hanau morganauts were each made Fürstin which, in this context, was a lesser advancement. This exception is rendered more understandable when one can see that she held the title of countess in her own right prior to marriage. Distinctions of this kind can be lost when looking at such cases as Lady Augusta Gordon-Lennox or Laura Seymour, where the brides, despite the ducal families into which they were born, held no titles of their own, thus their elevation as countesses was deemed sufficient in Germany, whereas the British sovereign allowed them to share their husbands' princely titles at her court.

In any event, I observe that "consistency" is often the grounds given for edits you make, and I often find that a reasonable perspective. I do ask that as you proceed along those lines that you note, when inclined to delete a title, whether that may unintentionally leave unclear the status and legal title of the person in question, especially if it is a woman. When writing about historical figures it is worth bearing in mind that such titles carried much more significance, even in the recent past, than nowadays. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. What you just said makes total sense. It's true that I usually prefer to keep things consistent, but that doesn't mean that exceptions don't exist. As a matter of fact, I usually contribute to the articles about British monarchy, and I'm less aware about the details of articles about German figures and their houses. Thus, if you believe that adding the title "Countess" to that info box is truly necessary, please go ahead and do it. Thanks for the explanation though. It was really helpful. Keivan.f^Talk 04:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

GOCE requests

Hi Keivan.f; regarding your requests at the Guild of Copy Editors' Requests page, we currently limit requests to two per editor at any one time; this limit ensures all requests get a fair chance of being dealt with in good time. You've added four c/e requests, so I've removed the latter two, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. Feel free to swap the remaining two requests around if you'd prefer one or two to be done before the others. The current average waiting time is around a month, but requests are often accepted more quickly. You can re-add the removed requests once the first two articles have been copy-edited. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 22:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Baffle gab1978; thanks for the explanation. I didn't know about that rule. By the way, I'm glad that you removed the last two requests because I wanted the articles about their wives to be copy-edited first. As you said, I'll resubmit them after the current ones have been copy-edited. Thank you. Keivan.f^Talk 23:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for your reply and your understanding. To save you rewriting the requests, here's the diff of the removal [4]. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 00:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

your reverts

hi, your reverts of my discussed changes after a ip attempted to remove issue is just the perfect example of what a waste of time it is bothering to try and improve wikipedia, I saw an ip attempt to change issue to children, I agreed with them that issue was outdated, I am an English speaker and I had to google issue to understand what it meant, clearly, users are trying to remove issue and replace it with children, why are they attempting to do that? I opened a discussion , I got support and changed it - you come along and go, nah dont like it and revert it back after days of discussion, what a waste of time. Children, that is what almost all readers see them as, issue is meaningless to the vast majority of readers. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't change it because I preferred the other format, I changed it for the sake of consistency. If you really want to see that parameter changed, you have to get a general consensus. In the discussion that you mentioned, one user did not fully agree with you and the other just told you how to change the parameter. A more broad discussion involving more participants is required for changes that you are proposing. Keivan.f^Talk 13:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Why Did You Blank The Career Section Of Abdou Cherif?

I would like to know as of why you decided to delete the entire career section of the article. StrikoWriter1234 (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)StrikoWriter1234

It wasn't about his career. It was a list of his appearances and concerts. Besides it was completely unsourced as I mentioned in my edit summary. If you have access to reliable sources, then feel free to restore it. Otherwise, leave it as it is. Keivan.f^Talk 02:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Hamid Al-Shairi. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

Hello:

Your request for a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

Hello:

Your request for a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

[5] I would have done if Twofingers let me edit the article. But apparently, I'm not allowed and every edit of mine is reverted, even when it is the addition of a clearly missing preposition or the addition of a possessive 's.[6] He even chose to mark his revert as minor and use SCREAMERCAPS, both of which are insults on wikipedia. DrKay (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't revert your edit, and to be honest, I was against adding that sentence to the lead since the beginning. The best thing to do was taking the issue to the talk page which you have already done, and it seems that the issue is resolved. Keivan.f^Talk 19:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of official overseas trips made by Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Amiens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

In the ancestry section, the editor Esemgee has removed the file (photo) of Potternewton Hall Estate where it is well documented that Olive Middleton, nee Lupton was born and grew up. The estate belonged to her family. Please return the file to its correct place in the ancestry section. Thank you 175.33.198.186 (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

To be honset, I'm not familiar with Middleton's ancestry, and I'm not sure why the other user has removed the photo, yet it seems that he has challenged the accuracy of the info that has been removed. The best thing you could do is leaving a message on Talk:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Users who know about this subjet will offer their opinions and act based on the result of the discussion. Cheers! Keivan.f^Talk 03:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Bridgette Andersen

Hi. Can you look over Bridgette Andersen for proofing, style and grammar. Please. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I briefly looked at the article and did some minor changes. It seems to be well-developed, yet it obviously needs more citations. I'll probably try to find sources for its content in the future. In terms of grammar and style, I didn't find any major error, yet you can always submit a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Keivan.f^Talk 18:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Bridgette's movie Savannah Smiles needs a look through too if you can please. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Duchess of Sussex edit

Hi, I just wanted to apologize for the accidental "Drumpf" edit I made on the Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, page. I didn't even realize that had happened until I looked at the diffs. I wasn't trying to vandalize, I was just trying to switch "Los Angeles, California" to "Los Angeles, California". I was borrowing my brother's computer--he downloaded that John Oliver app that makes anything on the internet that says "Trump" appear as "Drumpf". I had no idea that would actually carry over into the wiki editing interface. Sorry about that. ~ Iamthecheese44 (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Iamthecheese44:, it's OK. You seem to be an experienced user and that is why I was surprised when I looked at the diffs. I guessed that it should have been an accident and it turns out that I was right. I also switched "Los Angeles, California" to "Los Angeles, California". Keivan.f^Talk 02:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Gülben Ergen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Star TV

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Can Yaman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cosmopolitan

Elçin Sangu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to NTV

Tarkan (singer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Come Closer

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Burcu Biricik, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gece (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lady Gabriella Windsor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Ottoman Sultan's consort

I think Ayesha Begum and Ayşe Hatun were the same person, aren't they? Hafidh Wahyu P (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hafidh Wahyu P: I think you are right, and it seems that they were the same person. Yet, I don't want to blank the page without further discussion, that is why I'll probably nominate Ayesha Begum for either redirect or deletion to see what other users think about it. Keivan.f^Talk 22:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales

Please complete the info on Diana's Styles and Titles.

Whilst married to Charles, she was also Duchess of Cornwall.

Likewise Camilla now has access to every single one of Diana's married titles, because she is now married to Charles But she is not entitled to Diana's familial titles as she herself is not of noble birth and will never be called Lady Camilla, for example, whereas Diana was actually still Lady Diana after her divorce).

Charles's titles are as follows and his current wife (as his first wife, before her) is entitled to the feminine versions of his Titles:

His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales. Earl of Chester (Countess of) Duke of Cornwall (Duchess of) Duke of Rothesay (Duchess of) Earl of Carrick (Countess of) Baron of Renfrew (Baroness of) Lord of the Isles (Lady of) Prince of Scotland Great Steward of Scotland

Thank you.

CuriousAndTrue (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

NFCC discussion for Bridgette Andersen

There is an ongoing discussion about whether the image in the infobox at Bridgette Andersen passes WP:NFCC. Since you recently edited the article, we would appreciate it if you could join the discussion at Talk:Bridgette Andersen#non-free imagery. Aspects (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I would love to join the discussion. Right now I'm busy with a ton of home works, but I will leave a comment as soon as find some free time. Keivan.f^Talk 23:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Princess Diana Conspiracy

Why were my edits removed? Uncoveringcelebrityhistory (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Because you were using tabloids to back up your claims which is not acceptable. Keivan.f^Talk 19:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

What would be the proper links then? If you google his name and the word diana lots of articles come up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncoveringcelebrityhistory (talk • contribs) 12:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Just because something pops up in Google when you search it doesn't mean that the subject is notable or the sources that you have found are reliable. If you are so eager to add those information to the article, I suggest you look for sources such as The Guardian, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, Time, etc. or news websites such as BBC, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc. Hopefully you'll be able to find at least one of these in your search results. Keivan.f^Talk 14:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Barış Arduç

Hi Keivan.f, I removed the philanthropy section. I think you have named it incorrectly. I think a 6 months period of showing face at certain promoted events, doesn't make you a philanthropist. If Arduç is genuinely philanthropic, I have no doubt he will get a section, but at the moment, 6 months fits the pattern for career advancement and promotion. It is a common pattern you see up at COI every week. It is either awards, or philanthropy, or a combination thereof. The more I look at it, its not right. Apart, a fine article update. scope_creep (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Nihat Doğan) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Nihat Doğan.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

This has been tagged for one concern.

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry B. Eyring, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Eyring (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Keivan.f. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Bengü (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cassette

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hande Yener, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Best FM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Help with Iranian films

Hi, since you read Persian, can you help me? I'm trying to complete this table: Pyongyang_International_Film_Festival#Major Award Winners. As you can see many Iranians have won the awards, but I cannot identify a couple winners, namely the Best Actor in 1994 and Best Actress in 2004, both from Iran. All I know is the Best Actor in 1994 was from a film called either "Priest" or "Bride" (see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%EC%8B%A0%EB%B6%80). The 2004 winner was from a film which roughly translates to "Suit" in Korean. Can you do a little Googling for me, or if you are uninterested, direct me to a Persian-speaker who may be? Thanks a lot Timmyshin (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Timmyshin: Hi. The Iranian actor who won the award in 1994 was Abolfazl Poorarab, for his role in the movie Bride. I'll try to find the name of the actress who won the award in 2004, and then I'll let you know. Keivan.f^Talk 03:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Terrific, thanks ! Timmyshin (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The Iranian actress who has won the award is Hedieh Tehrani, for her role in the movie Party, but I think she won the award in 2002, not 2004. Keivan.f^Talk 04:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• You are absolutely right, it was 2002. Source: [7] Thanks so much, couldn't have figured these out without you. :) Timmyshin (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks again for not only helping me but also being so resourceful and quick! Timmyshin (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Ben Bazen) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Ben Bazen.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

This is an amazing article for having just been created. Good job!

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

DannyS712 (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Great article creation in 'Aşk Kaç Beden Giyer?'! Keep it up! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 04:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)