User talk:Keivan.f/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Date format

Hi, I noticed your edits on Oprah with Meghan and Harry. Please can you take care to use the established date format in articles? See MOS:DATEUNIFY. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Abbyjjjj96. Thanks for the reminder. I had written the passage to be used on both this article and the article on Harry's memoir, but I forgot to change the date format accordingly. I'll try to be more careful in the future. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 18:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Keivan.f!

Happy New Year!

Keivan.f,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moops: Happy New Year to you too. I really appreciate your message; and sorry for my delayed response. I hope we have collaborations in areas of mutual interest in the future. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 18:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

TY for the kind message. Take care for now! :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Harry and Meghan

Dear Keivan.f,

Thank you for pointing out that I didn’t state where the figure of 12% came from – I have done some research and found that this figure was found by analysing the votes of thousands of viewers, information which I have now added to clarify the source.

Thanks again,

Scientelensia Scientelensia (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits recently moving things to where they should be! To improve the page is it good to reference how Harry is distinctly unpopular in the UK and explain why using sources (as I feel only the poll stating he is disliked is an indication of this)? Scientelensia (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Scientelensia: Hi. Hope you're having a good day. Just wanted point out that in the part you added about the series, you mentioned that the 12% was taken from a figure on Rotten Tomatoes. The series initially had a 12% audience score, based on thousands of reviews by the public. This figure later increased to 18% as you can see here. The critics score is currently at 40%. Per WP:TVRECEPTION, user ratings cannot be included in articles about TV series and movies, because they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew. On the other hand, I don't see the point of including any scores on the main articles about either Harry or Meghan, which are already too long. The information about the documentary is under their respective career sections, where I also included a sentence about how the series received mixed reviews using one of the sources that you had initially provided. As you're probably already aware, critics score along with detailed reviews are already included at Harry & Meghan#Reception. That's the best place to have them because there have been concerns about the length of the articles on Harry and Meghan, which is why I prefer to have them as condensed as possible.

With regards to Harry's unpopularity, well, we already have the poll included. If we are to include a detailed account of why he's disliked we need solid reliable sources, but even in that case they would be considered subjective and attribution is needed for every claim added. That's because we cannot write about such matters in Wikipedia's voice. Hope I explained it well. Keivan.f^Talk 23:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah fair enough, thanks for the explanation :) Scientelensia (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TROP s1 soundtrack.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TROP s1 soundtrack.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

ROP S1 music

I mucked up the description on my latest edit, just wanted to clarify that I think we should not be duplicating the key art in the album infobox since the same artwork is already in the main infobox at the top of the article. This is explicitly called out at MOS:TV. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@adamstom97 That's totally understandable, and I agree with you. There's no need for a duplicate. The infobox alone should be enough. Keivan.f^Talk 20:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to List of queens of Persia, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Please use the talk page if you want to make sweeping changes and are removing citations PigeonChickenFish (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not add content, I removed content that was WP:OR, so you accusations are unfounded. Keivan.f^Talk 21:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Your editing process changes the name and context of the article without discussion on the talk page. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@PigeonChickenFish Is there a ban on changing the article's content? We have no policy which states that we should discuss every single change with the community unless it's controversial, otherwise there would be no improvements to pages whatsoever. If anything, I improved a bizarre list that put queens regnant and queens consort in the same space, thus misleading the readers. Besides, the name of the article should use English words not words from foreign languages that may be unfamiliar to English-speaking users, which is why List of monarchs of Persia is not at "List of Shahs of Persia". Keivan.f^Talk 21:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Right, but it doesn’t read "List of Kings of Persia" either. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Because "monarch" is a gender-neutral word that covers both males and females. As such, Musa, Boran, and Azarmidokht are listed there too; since they were monarchs but they were not kings. So it does not make sense to have that article at "list of kings of Persia". Keivan.f^Talk 21:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Another example similar to List of queens of Persia would be Empress of Japan, which lists both empresses regnant and consort, while list of emperors of Japan lists those female monarchs alongside their male counterparts. So there is a precedent. Keivan.f^Talk 21:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mesut Akusta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Börü.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Bot Sentinel

On 8 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bot Sentinel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Bot Sentinel report described conspiracy theories about Prince Harry and Meghan as being reminiscent of QAnon? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bot Sentinel. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bot Sentinel), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Images

Hi! What do you mean by saying the images I added to Princess Beatrice are "space consuming" and removing them? They are relevant, and do not take up any space.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 02:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Just to clarify, you were not adding any images to the article on Princess Beatrice, but to the one on her husband Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi. They are space consuming because the article is not that long and meanwhile it is getting saturated with images, which is against MOS:SANDWICH. Not to mention that Mapelli Mozzi's biograaphy should not be a catalogue containing images of his wife and ex-partner, especially since there are two independent articles covering those women in depth with images, etc. Keivan.f^Talk 02:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

MOS:SANDWICH has nothing to do with two images on the right- please read it. How does adding images reduce the space for the article? Why shouldn't images of his wife and ex be included?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 11:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

You also removed the photo I added of the cricket stadium. Please read WP:IMGCONTENT "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central."♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 12:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@L'Origine du monde: And what does the cricket stadium have to do with Edoardo specifically? Yes, he is associated with it, just like Charles III is associated with Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, yet we don't throw around images, specially in cases where an article for the so called place or individual exists. I also notice that another user opposed to your changes in the infobox. As the person who's trying to introduce new changes it is your responsibility to seek consensus for your changes. You have probably violated the WP:3R rule by now. Keivan.f^Talk 16:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

"The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article" The cricket stadium is described in the article. How does including the image breach policy? You seem to have iconoclastic tendencies.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 19:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

user:Keivan.f I see that you also removed the image of the school he attended. Why did you do that? What objection do you have to images of people and things described in the article being featured in the article? I like relevant images - they make it nicer to look at and read. I feel that your editing is negative, and that you refuse to read wikipedia policy. Would you like to seek dispute resolution?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 19:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Take it to Talk:Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi#Adding images to the article's body. Keivan.f^Talk 20:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 in Turkey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NTV.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The Wessex children

Howdy. I made some changes to the bios of the Earl & Countess of Wessex concerning their children (not sure if they're correct), to better reflect the article titles of their childrens' bio pages. PS - Has anyone considered RMs for Louise & James? or has that already occurred. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Hi. I doubt that would be the correct form of address. You only need to look at the Court Circular. Yes, they are entitled to be styled as Prince/ss (just like the Sussex children) but at the moment they are untitled members of the extended royal family, and just like children of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, and Prince Michael of Kent, they should be mentioned by their surnames. Keivan.f^Talk 22:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

So... I should revert? GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I think I can restore the previous version but with a source added in the summary so that it does not become an issue again. Keivan.f^Talk 22:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

A footnote would be helpful, too :) GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Sure, I will either do that or add a source under appropriate sections with the articles' body. Keivan.f^Talk 22:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Queen Charlotte

claimed? Queen Charlotte was were 4th cousin twice removed with King George III through "George III Graf von Erbach" Queen Charlotte descended from George Albert I of Erbach-Erbach (his son), King George III descended from Margherita von Erbach (his daughter by 2nd marriage).

"George III Graf von Erbach" was the one claimed to be the direct descendant of Madragana.

George III Graf von Erbach > Margherita von Erbach > Joaquim Ernest d’Oettingen-Oettingen > Sophie Margarete of Oettingen-Oettingen > John Frederick, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach > Princess Caroline of Brandenburg-Ansbach > Frederick, Prince of Wales > King George III

this is just from one branch of the family, they were connected from several German noble family saxe gotta, Brunswick, Holstein, etc

actually they were 4th cousin twice removed.

"George III Graf von Erbach" was Queen Charlotte's 3rd Great Grandfather.

"George III Graf von Erbach" was King George III's 5th Great Grandfather.

Wentwort12 (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be your response to the comment I left at Talk:Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz#NPOV Dispute about a year ago. You could have tagged me there or been more clear in the message you left here to indicate what it was that you actually were talking about. Nevertheless, I traced it down and left you a response at the article's talk page. Suffice to say that you need a secondary reliable source to back the claim up: that Madragana was a common ancestor of both George and Charlotte. You can carry this conversation on there so that the community can also take part. Keivan.f^Talk 07:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi friend, if I could encourage you to use edit summaries, it would be helpful. 😀 I was reluctant to write, I don't want to over state the importance of it. All the best. (Hopefully that was a non-templatey as possible, lol) CT55555(talk) 15:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

CT55555 Hi. I usually do use them when making major edits, but sometimes I forget because I try to submit as fast as possible. Anyway, I'll be more careful next time. Keivan.f^Talk 16:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that. Just for context, I was pouring over the edit to Ngozi Fulani trying to work out what the change was, I think/deduce you removed an unnecessary citation. The article was a vandalism-magnet recently, so I keep an eye on it. CT55555(talk) 16:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

CT55555 Yes, there was an update in her status since she's no longer the CEO of Sistah Space (at least temporarily), so I discarded the old citations and replaced it with a new one. Thanks for keeping an eye on the article. Keivan.f^Talk 16:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anıl Piyancı, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Eno, DMC and Edis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't Taliban Section- Not misleading/misunderstanding

I didn't edit the taliban section. I changed the word 'challenging' to 'over' in the taxpayer security section. That's it. JayElk33 (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@JayElk33: This edit says otherwise, but since you say that was not your intention I assume you were editing an old version of the article and the quote accidentally got restored. Keivan.f^Talk 21:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

That's weird. I didn't make that edit with the Taliban quote. JayElk33 (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Charles III coronation emblem.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Charles III coronation emblem.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Şükran Ovalı for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Şükran Ovalı, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Şükran Ovalı until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

"Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom 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/2023 March 15 § Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom until a consensus is reached. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hatnote for Mary, Queen of the UK

I asked you which hatnote you would prefer, of the ones I suggested on 18 March 2023 at the redirect for discussion which has recently been relisted. Either you neglected to answer or I didn't notice your reply. As you also said you'd prefer a hatnote, I would appreciate your opinion regarding which would be best. – Scyrme (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Scyrme. I think I replied but my comment got lost in the middle of all those paragraphs. I think either of them would be fine, but I guess the second one may be better. Keivan.f^Talk 03:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Either? Did you mean "any"? There were 3 suggestions:

1. use {{distinguish}}; Not to be confused with Mary of England
2. use {{redirect}}; "Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom" redirects here. For "Mary, Queen of England", see Mary of England
3. use {{hatnote}} to write a custom one; I suggested the wording: "Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom" redirects here. Not to be confused with Mary, Queen of England" (you can suggest your own wording, if you prefer)

Is {{redirect}} your preference of these 3? – Scyrme (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Scyrme: I see. I actually missed the first one and thought there were only two options. Sorry about that. Both 2 and 3 look good, but I guess 3 may be better. That's the one I was trying to refer to in my previous comment. Keivan.f^Talk 13:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Take it easy!

It took you only 7 seconds to revert what I tried to add to Queen Camilla's article based on the coronation invitation. I respectfully suggest you take a deep breath and calm down long enough to write a relevant edit summary that makes sense. None of the articles you referred me to here are named "Letitia, Queen Consort", etc. On the contrary. I don't mind being reverted, even that speedily, but at the least we can ask of each other is that our edit summaries, especially when reverting, are relevant. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, The reason for the revert has nothing to do with the article's title. The general format used by Wikipedia for the opening sentences on articles about living or deceased queens consort is [Name] is/was Queen of [Country] as the wife of [Name]. There's no need to repeat "Queen" before her name or anywhere else, when the sentence already says that she's a queen. What can be altered is dropping the word "Consort" from the opening sentence on Camilla's page, as previous queens such as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Mary of Teck and Alexandra of Denmark have been simply referred to as "Queen of the United Kingdom". Keivan.f^Talk 15:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Still does not explain why you linked to those articles when reverting my well-sourced entry. The fact is that she is a.k.a. Queen Camilla. Our work is supposed to give readers clear and concise info, not play unreasonable format games.

Constructive suggestion: see if you can find a way to use the source I added to update the lead today! Rather than just reverting something we now need in there.

Far be it from me to try to figure out what wording might be acceptable to you or to quibble with you over such format as you might consider carved in stone (or to accuse you, as yet, of WP:OWN re the entire British royal family, but we're getting there with every reversal you do within seconds, no matter whose work doesn't suit you). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, If by every reversal you are referring to recent edits by User:Isaac Elkins, yes, it needed to be reverted and it was reverted by me and User:DrKay because the edit was not constructive. I have not reverted anything else on that page for days, so the accusations of WP:OWN is unfounded. That being said, I clearly explained the reason why I linked to those articles. Not a single article on a queen consort, queen regnant, or king uses the structure you suggested in the lede and consistency in article titles and language matters. But, Camilla's situation is not similar to other queens so we can make an exception for now I guess. I will try my best to put back the source and the phrase "Queen Camilla" in the lede but I need to figure out how it can be done without disrupting the overall flow of the sentences. Keivan.f^Talk 16:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Signature of Prince Andrew, Duke of York.png

The file File:Signature of Prince Andrew, Duke of York.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

obsolete

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Auguel (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Signature of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex.jpg

The file File:Signature of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

obsolete, low quality

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Auguel (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit suggestion for Catherine, Princess of Wales

Hi Keivan, feel free to delete this but you didn't respond to my other request to add the British Institute of Florence as her alma mater between Marlborough College and the university as she completed at least Italian and History of Art courses there so I think that is sufficient enough to include it. 74.12.3.165 (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I must have forgotten about your message (I cannot remember whether it was on this talk page or somewhere else). Anyway, I have added the institute's name to the infobox now. Keivan.f^Talk 05:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I noticed this person called 'MSincccc' is acting like a tyrant on Catherine's page making superfluous edits and saying "DON'T REMOVE" aggressively. Is there any way to revert them? They made changes like adding 'education' to the subtitle 'Early life and career' when it was fine as it was, changing 'history of art' which is how the course is referred to in the UK to 'art history' which is the American version, and other unnecessary changes. 74.12.3.165 (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

They can write "Don't remove" as much as they like. Their edits are subject to scrutiny just like anyone else's. Feel free to share your feedback or comments on the article's talk page. Also, I changed "art history" back to "history of art" because the article is on a British subject and should use British spelling and phrases. Keivan.f^Talk 22:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry this is the last message I'll post here as I don't mean to harass you but there is still 'art history' on her page rather than 'history of art' and I've gone through their edit history and they have also superfluously removed large amounts of texts like one of her published articles and her entire childhood. I just feel like some of the edits have been made in bad faith and are tantamount to trolling. But I will address it on the talk page if it continues. 74.12.3.165 (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Yes, I see that "art history" was used twice on the page, but I had to log in from my computer to track all of them down. They have now been removed. Also, please point me to the article that you said was removed. I can add it back if it has been removed without justification. And, try to assume good faith, but if you think there are edits that are affecting the page in a bad way rather than improving it, feel free to bring them up on the article's talk page. Keivan.f^Talk 23:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you already reverted their edit or someone else did I just don't know why they made so many superfluous edits but yes, I will bring it up on the talk page if I see a repeated issue. 74.12.3.165 (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Amazing resistance

Hello there! Isn't it amazing the extremely stubborn resistance we can see in situations such as the Camilla-title phenomenon?! I always try to figure out why people behave like that. Might it make some of them feel more important than she is, if they get to decide what to call her? Can't come up with anything better. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi SergeWoodzing. Yes, I do agree that the amount of mental gymnastics undertaken on the talk page is simply astonishing. But personally, I do believe that the issue will be resolved once the title on her official website changes. That being said, it's better to set the ground for change now as some users are refusing to acknowledge the fact that "Queen Camilla" is a pretty common and accurate name. Keivan.f^Talk 16:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maria Regina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen Mary.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Coronation medal - Australia & New Zealand

The citation is already on the page, all living recipients of the Victoria cross and george cross. It’s exactly the same as the Diamond and Platinum medals.

New Zealand

• 1 Victoria Cross for New Zealand

Australia

• 1 Victoria Cross • 3 Victoria Cross for Australia • 1 George Cross • 5 Cross of Valour Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Nford24 Thanks for the clarification. Although the eligibility criteria is clear, I think we might still need a citation for the numbers. In any case, adding a hidden note next to the numbers could also help, to avoid getting it tagged again in the future. I'll leave it to you then since you appear to be familiar with the subject. Keivan.f^Talk 06:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Adjoa Andoh controversy

Could you please revisit this if you get the chance [[1]] There are, inevitably, a number of competing approaches to this controversy. Leopardstown (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding succession on the lead of page "Catherine, Princess of Wales"

Hello Keivanf, as you can see, two days ago user Gugrak removed the fact that George, Charlotte and Louis are second, third and fourth in the line of succession to the British throne from the Princess' page's lead. But I find that it should be mentioned in the lead as it's helpful and accurate and has been there for a long time. Also it's similar to the way other royals have their children's place in the line of succession has been mentioned on their page leads. User Gugrak also started a discussion regarding the topic. Could you please give your opinion on it? For now, I am going to mention the fact there again as it is only accurate and informative. Waiting for your reply. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello MSincccc and sorry for the delayed response. I'm rather busy these days. I also think that the children's position in the line of succession should be mentioned. Because even if William were to never ascend the throne, one of his children could and as their mother Catherine would hold a prominent position within the royal family. So it is absolutely crucial to make it clear that her children are in direct line to the throne at the moment. Keivan.f^Talk 22:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Controversy regarding recent edit on the page Catherine,Princess of Wales

Hello, Keivanf but user Gugrak has again initiated an edit war on the page "Catherine, Princess of Wales". Your previous edit did not mention the fact that students came from the ten "elementary" schools who were participating in the "RHS" Campaign for School Gardening. I made these necessary changes but user Gugrak has already reverted my edit twice in the space of five minutes and is set to revert it for a third time now in violation of the 3R rule. Please help and give your opinion on the matter. Support me on the talk page if you can. It is only appropriate and accurate that these changes have been made by me. Thank you MSincccc (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc: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 here. Gugrak (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Yvette Nicole Brown- section on “controversy”

Hello Keivanf- What is your reason for deleting the section? I provided primary and secondary sources: 2 news articles about the controversy from two different news outlets. So what is the reason for removal? FizaziSahara (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi FizaziSahara . The section has not been deleted. It's been turned into a subsection under "personal life". The only parts removed were those that were backed by primary sources. The rest of it is still intact. Keivan.f^Talk 16:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits you made to the page "List of official overseas visits made by William, Prince of Wales and Catherine, Princess of Wales"

Hello, Keivanf, I have gone through your edits on the given page (name mentioned in subject heading). I just wanted to make a few confirmations. Firstly, I changed "visited" to "travelled to" (Given relevant reasons. Please do not change "). Next, I wanted to mention that "Hello " is not as good a cited source as People or BBC Magazine (you can refer to my discussion on Gugrak's talk page "Reliability of People magazine". So I would prefer replacing the Hello citation once more information has been fetched. Lastly, would you please confirm whether once other reliable articles' sources are available should I add information regarding the Jordan visit under the "Public Life" heading of Catherine's page and "Prince of Wales" heading under William's page. Please reply and confirm the above. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello MSincccc. I have no problem with the word change. "Travelled to" conveys the same meaning in a better way. Also, Hello! is not my preferred choice for a source, but it was the only one available at the moment, and it's better to have a source rather than to have none. Finally, I would not add this visit under their "Public life" sections. Members of the British royal family (just like other royal families) routinely attend state funerals, weddings, and ceremonies to mark a monarch's ascension. So there is nothing extraordinary going on here. Keivan.f^Talk 11:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

But I would be adding citations from "People" and "BBC News" once they report on the Prince and Princess of Wales appearance at the wedding as they provide more in-depth information and also it is likely that they will publish theirs only once all the formalities have been completed ie at the end of the day. BBC has historically being reliant especially in articles related to royals and I have discussed People 's reliability on the discussion page of user Gugrak as said before. I hope you have no objections to the above. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I have added a reliable source of an article from the wedding by People Magazine. As of now, BBC News has not published an article from the wedding. Hence dod not add it. Removed earlier citation as it mentioned their arrival in Jordan nothing regarding the wedding which is more significant. This citation by me is of an article which will be updated time and again atleast for some time before next week. I hope you understand and do not remove the "People" citation. Will add a "BBC News" citation also if I find one. Thank you MSincccc (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Parviz Shapour birth and death

Hello Keivan.f: You changed the birth and death dates for Parviz Shapour but that does not seem to be supported by sources. What source did you use for this change? Thank you, MarioGom (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello MarioGom. There were two sources; one of them I cannot seem to find at the moment but the other one was from Iran newspaper. Not sure if you can read Persian or not, but it says at the very end that he was born on February 25, 1924 and died on August 6, 1999. The other source was giving a different birth date but since I cannot access it I'll include the dates given by the only available source at the moment. Keivan.f^Talk 13:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Keivan.f: I can't read Persian, but I guess machine translation might be enough to verify this if the exact source is referenced in the article. MarioGom (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

MarioGom: Just to be clear, this is what the article states: "تاريخ تولد پرويز شاپور پنجم اسفند ،۱۳۰۲ تاريخ فوت پانزدهم مردادماه ۱۳۷۸ در تهران". Google Translate gives the following translation "Parviz Shapour was born on the 5th of March 1302 and died on the 15th of August 1378 in Tehran." This is incorrect because it does not take into account that Iran uses the Solar Hijri calendar. So per the source he was born on Esfand 5, 1302, and died on Mordad 15, 1378. The equivalent for this would be February 25, 1924 and August 6, 1999 (you can use Iran Chamber Society's converter or any other converter of choice). Keivan.f^Talk 14:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Keivan.f: Thanks a lot for the clarification! MarioGom (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Short descriptions

Should generally not exceed 40 characters. Descriptions longer than 40 characters are truncated in some contexts, meaning that descriptions like this[2] are truncated to "King of Scotland (r. 1649–51); King of E". DrKay (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@DrKay: Thanks for the reminder. It seems impossible to include the dates for his reign as King of Scotland, so I just reverted it back to how it was. Keivan.f^Talk 14:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The Royal Foundation and Homewards

Hello Keivanf, I recently thought it to be an unwise thing to only cite the Telegraph article for the Homewards campaign when other reliable sources are now available. I justified this edit of mine and replaced one recurring Telegraph citation with one article directly from the Royal Foundation's website regarding the page. But to my astonishment the page took a different view after my edit got published. Now that it was a mistake on my end could you please help in bringing the Homewards section of the page to its original form without removing the Royal Foundation citation. I hope to retain it but now I need help to restore the section into its normal self. Will you please assist me by doing so? 223.226.76.25 (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello the above request has been made by me, MSincccc. It is showing as an unregistered account because I used an external device to edit this talk page. I hope you understand. Expecting a reply soon @Keivan.f. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

MSinccc, Ive fixed your error. But you should also know that it's incorrect to replace a reliable secondary source like The Telegraph with a primary source like the Royal Foundation website. Please refer to WP:PRIMARY. The only thing wrong with that paragraph is that it is unnecessary to repeat The Telegraph citation after each sentence. It need only be cited once - at the end of the paragraph. DeCausa (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc: I was about to reply but I suddenly realized that DeCausa has resolved the issue. I would avoid using a primary source as much as I could per WP:PRIMARY, which is why I did not include the Royal Foundation's website as a source in the first place. But, I also think it's better to overcite occasionally rather than undercite a source, because it shows that the text is fully supported by the citation and makes it impossible to tag any of the sentences as 'unsourced'. However, since we have one secondary source included at the moment, I think it's pretty clear where all the information has come from. Keivan.f^Talk 13:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Charles III requested move discussion

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ezhel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Murda.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

"King of the United Kingdom" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect King of the United Kingdom 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/2023 July 30 § King of the United Kingdom until a consensus is reached. . This listing also covers Queen of the United Kingdom. You are being notified because you have contributed to one or both of these pages in the past by changing or setting the redirect target. Thank you! Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

RM notice

Hello Keivan.f. A few months ago you participated in an RM at Talk:Wedding of Prince Albert and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon#Requested move 23 March 2023. There is now a similar RM at Talk:Wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling#Requested move 4 August 2023 if you'd like to participate! Cheers, estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Your edit of the info box of Mary II of England

Whether "king of England" was the "highest title" William III achieved is debatable: it is certainly rather Anglocentric; a Dutchman might disagree :-) However, this is a minor quibble. I placed my revision because the previous edit (that I reverted) made a valid point in my view, namely that at the time of the marriage William was "only" stadtholder and Prince of Orange (two different things, by the way). He only did it wrong by putting in a wikilink that went through a redirect. To avoid future problems it is better to use a direct wikilink that is embedded in the text one wants to use. So you are correct when you replace the redirected wikilink for James II, but I think my previous revision of William III was the correct one. However, I don't want to start an edit war by reverting your petulant edit. I hope you'll see the error of your ways and change the William III edit back. Ereunetes (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol invitation

Hello, Keivan.f. The new pages patrol team is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help. I believe that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines. Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions. If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here. Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around! Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

This is edit warring. I'm sure you know better. Start a talk page discussion! Do not start an edit war! SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: Two reverts do not constitute an edit war. I'm certain you're well aware of that. Keivan.f^Talk 19:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

You are out of touch and seem to be getting bad habits. Read up up at WP:WAR! "This page in a nutshell: Don't use edits to fight with other editors. Disagreements should be resolved through discussion." --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: No I'm not out of touch and I'm certainly not blind. WP:WAR states An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Nobody has violated WP:3RR here and I cannot understand your over-dramatization of the situation. Keivan.f^Talk 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Wanna read the bolded "nutshell" summary of the page or not? The 3RR is a line of extreme bad behavior which never must be crossed. Reverting another editor's revert without discussion is always edit warring. Consensus is reached on talk pages, not via edit summaries. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The nutshell does not specify the number of times you can or cannot revert. And if I wanted to edit war with you I wouldn't have started the discussion on the article talk page; so, I guess we have had enough talks about the technicalities. I really don't want to argue over such trivial matters when things can be discussed calmly. Keivan.f^Talk 19:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Sad that you find the nutshell summary trivial. You stared the discussion after reverting my revert. That's a no-no. No 2nd revert without talk page. See you've fixed that now. Good! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Sad that you find the nutshell summary trivial. I never said such a thing, so don't put words in my mouth. I was referring to the matter of whether we should have a solo picture of her or one with her husband. That is indeed an absolutely trivial issue. And there is no rule which states we cannot start a discussion after reverting someone else's edit. So, enough with the lectures; I suggest you focus on making your argument on the article talk page as to why it is undesirable to show her husband's face next to hers. Keivan.f^Talk 20:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023 (2)

Your continued personalization of article talk here is in direct contradiction of WP:TPYES "Comment on content, not on the contributor or It's the edits that matter, not the editor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." - and your attempting to argue it there just confirms your bad habit of commenting on others against guideline. Please stop it ! SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Nobody has personalized anything. Just stop with your constant lectures about policy. At this point you're the one who's harassing me. Keivan.f^Talk 18:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

An unfounded accusation of harassment constitutes a clear personal attack and would actually warrant an additional section September 2023 (3). Why not try to be more careful in what you write? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Per our policy, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention constitutes a form of harassment. To which degree this contact has to be is open to interpretation, but this conversation has made us both uncomfortable. You made your point and I made mine. Enough said. Keivan.f^Talk 15:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Özge Özberk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kanal 1.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Diana, Princess of Wales

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Diana, Princess of Wales you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim O'Doherty -- Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

A Goat for You!!

Thank you for your help with Marina's article.

BillClinternet (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Circa template.

Thank you for that, on Dame Maggie Smith's page. I didn't know such a thing existed until just now. Always glad to learn some new tools to utilize around here. =) --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 21:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cinemaniac You're welcome. :) I'm glad you have found it useful. I came across it many months ago and it is indeed a useful template. Cheers! Keivan.f^Talk 21:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Assistance regarding multiple pages.

Hello @Keivan.f, I had multiple discussions to be made here with you which I have been thinking over for a long time. As we know The Royal Foundation's page has been named so but its actually called "The Royal Foundation of the Prince and Princess of Wales" and was known by the pages' current title only from 2018-2019 when Meghan Markle after marrying into the royal family joined Prince Harry and the then Duke and Duchess of Cambridge at the Foundation. So I was considering a page move to "The Royal Foundation of the Prince and Princess of Wales" and thought it best to first put the matter up to you since we are both one of the top three contributors to the page. Secondly, I wanted assistance and advice as to how could I gain pending changes reviewer and rollbacker rights as admins still find me inexperienced with countering vandalism. Also could you please brief me on how to become actively involved with countering vandalism across pages? Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello again MSincccc and sorry for the delayed response. Well, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to a move but I suggest doing it via WP:RM. This allows other potentially interested users to chime in and also determines what the WP:COMMONNAME is. Because in some scenarios a shorter common name could be preferred to a longer official name and even the official website uses the term "The Royal Foundation" frequently without constantly attaching William and Catherine's titles to it.

With regards to the other matter; I'm glad that you want to contribute to the project as a reviewer and rollbacker. You have been here for two years but what I suggest you do is to broaden your range of activities. It is good to focus on your topics of interest but make sure that you are viewing and taking care of other pages as well. I always check an article's history before starting to read it, just to make sure that the latest edits are sound and solid and no vandalism has taken place. Keivan.f^Talk 14:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Keivan.f would you mind not putting up William, Prince of Wales and other related pages for GA nomination now because I had like to actively participate but am presently under time constraints as you would know from my user page. Maybe we wait till April 2024. Will it be fine? I am a regular editor on the royal family's pages and an active contributor too. Also one of the all-time top editors now. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello MSincccc. Thanks for showing interest in these articles. Well, we are all under time constraints to be honest. You can check Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales/GA1 to see how slowly these reviews proceed. On top of that, there may be a delay of months before someone actually picks up the article for review (I was lucky this time). The sooner we put them up for review the better. Also, do not put pressure on yourself. You can chime in and assist whenever you like. Keivan.f^Talk 15:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f No I have examinations. Hence please wait. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc The world does not revolve around any of us. I have exams, a job and interviews to pass. You are active enough to participate. Additionally, please refrain from edit warring on those two pages and let other users make changes. If the pages appear to be unstable due to you or anyone else opposing every single change at every turn then they can never be promoted to GA status. Please bear that in mind. Keivan.f^Talk 16:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Also @Keivan.f please do not cite "People" and other magazines as "work". Please retain those edits of mine. I hope you understand. MSincccc (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc Magazines can be cited as "work". "Website" is typically used in scenarios where the website address is the official name of the entity (ex. news.com.au). In terms of formatting, we have to use "cite magazine" for magazines such as People, and "cite news" for news websites and newspapers such as the BBC or The Guardian. Refer to Charles III and Diana, Princess of Wales to see the examples (both of which are incidentally good articles). Keivan.f^Talk 16:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Would you mind leaving the work on pages Catherine, Princess of Wales and William, Prince of Wales to me. You can further your other projects then. I really mean what I say. As you can see, I am simultaneously editing alongside you on these pages specifically. You could tell me which and what changes need to be made while I will regularly make them including some accurate edits at my own discretion. This is a humble request from my end. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc You appear to be too enthusiastic about these two articles, which is both good and bad. I should remind you, per WP:OWN: No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). This is a Wikipedia policy that you cannot under any circumstances violate. There is no solid reason for me to stop working on two pages that I have contributed to for 12 years. You want to bring them to GA status? Well, so do I and so does User:Tim O'Doherty and a bunch of other people. The nominations will go through and it will likely take a month for each of them to be completed. The reviewer (not me or any other significant contributor such as you) will dictate which changes need to be made and you and I will implement them. In other words, you will have plenty of time to participate and take credit for it if that's what your concern is about. In fact, I would love to share the workload. That's what most users do; and you will not be required to respond to every request by the reviewer immediately because there's another user covering you. The sooner this is done the better. Keivan.f^Talk 16:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Well I don't know about Tim O' Doherty but I know that I, you and DrKay are very frequent editors to these pages especially me because I have an atbe of 1 and 2 for these pages. Further, I had like you to go forward, but please keep in touch with me before making significant changes to these articles like today's. I don't mindo 100 bytes or so edits but significant ones where you are making constant revisions throughout the article. And I would prefer to go forward with the GA review of only William, Prince of Wales and then Catherine, Princess of Wales else it would become messy and hectic for us. I think that you will be generous enough to keep me updated with any further significant changes that you make in future to these two articles. Also would you guide me as to how to submit an article's name for GA review? I request you to let me do it this time. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc Well, formatting the citations was something that needed to be done. It could not be avoided. User:Tim O' Doherty is the user who promoted Charles III's article to GA status and reviewed Diana's article. He is likely to review William's article as well. With regards to your other concern, yes, we will proceed one article at a time. There will be a review page similar to this one or this one which you can add to your watchlist to observe the changes that are requested by the reviewer. Additionally, per WP:GAI you have to be either the author of more than 10% of the article or ranked sixth or higher in authorship in order to nominate the page. You don't meet that criteria when it comes to Catherine's page (per this) and I had already nominated William's article by the time I saw your message. Best thing to do is to make sure that you will participate in the upcoming discussions. You don't have to be the nominator to take credit for bringing an article to GA or FA status. Keivan.f^Talk 17:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f If you are starting with the review tomorrow make sure you notify me so that I can also make relevant changes and also to inform us all before making any significant changes. Also I would propose that we abstain from making major or unwanted changes to the page Catherine, Princess of Wales even including fixing citations and section headers during this period. Convey this to @Tim O' Doherty as well. All this is important for accuracy and relevancy reasons. MSincccc (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

No need to convey this to Tim O'Doherty, as he's been pinged and read it already. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

And @Tim O'Doherty I deliberately pinned you here. By the way, looking at my edit count you will know that with an atbe of 1 and 2 as well as being 3rd on the all-time contribs list for the two pages William, Prince of Wales and Catherine, Princess of Wales I deserve to be actively notified during the GA review processes. By the way, let us agree to abstain from making major or unwanted changes to the page Catherine, Princess of Wales even including fixing citations and section headers during this period. Its important for accuracy and relevancy reasons. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

No, let's not agree to abstain from improving a live Wikipedia article for the benefit of thousands of daily readers just because you have exams. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I do @Tim O'Doherty but do you and @Keivan.f agree to mine. Its important and more so now that the article is going for GA review. MSincccc (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc I deserve to be actively notified during the GA review processes Your intentions might be pure but this sentence could potentially go against many things a community such as Wikipedia stands for. We are all volunteers. We cannot make "demands" from each other. I have always been one of the top contributors to Charles III's page, yet I never demanded to be notified 24/7 of what changes other users were making during the GA process. We don't have each other on speed dial after all. With regards to your other concern, nobody is going to make drastic changes to the page on Catherine, but I cannot guarantee what other users will be doing between now and then. We cannot simply chain someone to the ground and prevent them from making changes to pages that technically belong to all of the community, not just us. Please try to keep an open mind and always remember that we don't "own" any pages here and we don't "owe" each other anything. Keivan.f^Talk 18:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I am making pure requests in humble fashion. I will do the same for both you and @Tim O'Doherty. MSincccc (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f@Tim O'Doherty I atleast expect both of you from abstaining to make major changes on Catherine's page. MSincccc (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

No, you can't ask for progress to be blocked on a very high-profile biography. I appreciate that you want to improve the article yourself, but if you don't have time, don't expect others to stop for you. I'm sorry but that's not how this works. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty I did not ask for progress to be blocked but disruptive and unnecessary changes to be prevented. Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There isn't anything "disruptive" about cite and heading changes. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I also said unnecessary. Mark that. By the way, lets hope the best for tomorrow. Till then, I hope we mean good faith to each other. Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There's also nothing unnecessary about cite and heading changes either. I know you mean well, but you can contribute alongside us, not despite us. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I will. Take me into your company. I keep myself updated regarding the Prince and Princess of Wales and their family multiple times daily. I do not mean anything wrong. Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Good. Then instead of arguing about basically nothing and making unreasonable demands, it's better that we get to work and improve those two articles. Keivan.f^Talk 18:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty I have the time and means both and I strive to be an accurate, reliable and helpful contributor. MSincccc (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Then what does "[I] am presently under time constraints" mean? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty My mistake. Forget "presently under time constraints" then. Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Improving citations or adding parameters is not unnecessary or disruptive. On the other hand, it is entirely required. With regards to time constraints, we all have a life that we are living outside this community. We simply volunteer during our spare time to improve this project. If someone cannot do that, then that's their personal problem. We cannot stop for anyone (including me). Also, please don't get possessive over any topics. Believe me, you don't want a topic ban. Keivan.f^Talk 18:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I don't want any topic bans. By the way, I stopped being possessive hours ago. We were just discussing tomorrow as of late. I hope Keivan you won't put me in trouble given we have known each other for long now. Also Tim O'Doherty I am not possessive but just one of you all. MSincccc (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry. You are not in the danger zone. And, yes, I did notice that you have not been edit warring on those two pages, so you're fine. It's just that administrators may not be as lenient as us if they notice a back and forth on any high-profile pages. Keivan.f^Talk 18:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f@Tim O'Doherty Looking forward to collaborating with you both and taking first William, Prince of Wales and Catherine, Princess of Wales to GA status. I hope you both perceive me to be a good contributor eligible enough. MSincccc (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Diana, Princess of Wales

The article Diana, Princess of Wales you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales for comments about the article, and Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Tim O'Doherty, on behalf of Tim O'Doherty, as ChristieBot is taking its time. -- Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations Keivan.f on this wonderful achievement! — Diannaa (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thank you so much :) Keivan.f^Talk 11:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford: How is it original research when you can clearly see the dates for each reference that has been cited? And the London Gazette cannot be labeled as a primary source. It is published by the Government not Buckingham Palace. Keivan.f^Talk 11:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources in wikipedia terminology, i.e. they simply use the styles without any analysis or editorialising whereas the article previously synthesised this into an explanation of how styles develop and are employed, which is not found in the citations given. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford: You are referring to WP:SYNTHESIS I guess. Nevertheless, I went ahead and made sure that the styles included in that section match up with the ones found within the sources and I removed all the extra details. It should be fine now. Keivan.f^Talk 12:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Royalty GANs

Hello Keivan. Probably will not be reviewing the articles for Catherine, Camilla and Philip. Been running low on time lately and don't want to put you through another three weeks of waiting for each review; the Diana and William ones have been crawling along, and I'd be doing you a disservice by repeating that five times over. My apologies. I'll finish the William GAN off soon enough. Sorry for telling you this midway through, but I've been feeling guilty enough leaving you and MSincccc waiting for a close twice already, and I've not got enough in the tank to be doing those big, high-profile BLP reviews multiple times over at the moment. Sorry again. Have a great rest of your week, and all the best luck for your endeavours: I'll be cheering you on in the distance. Regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty and @Keivan.f I had rather recommend we go for the GA reviews of the articles Earthshot Prize and List of official overseas trips made by William, Prince of Wales, and Catherine, Princess of Wales. The reason being the former is William's most ambitious project till date as well as his biggest while the latter is a significant overview of all overseas visits made by William and Catherine. Moreover, I have of late being fixing the citations as done during the GAR of William, Prince of Wales. The articles are sufficiently lengthy and also properly cited. Future changes will of course be welcome. Then we can probably proceed to the articles of Catherine, Camilla and Philip in March-April 2024 when it's summer. Also I think it will be a convenient process. This is just a suggestion. Anyways, even I am not certain regarding the GAR for Catherine, Camilla and Philip before summer next year. Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think listicles are eligible for GAN, though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty I honestly don't think you should feel guilty about it. The reason is that I myself was unexpectedly too busy during the week that I would have had a hard time implementing any suggested changes. Not to mention that once you nominate an article it may take months before someone actually picks it up for reviewing. You just need to look at the list of articles sitting on the nominations page since months ago. So we are actually not falling behind.

If the length of time that it takes for you to do it is your concern, I'm fine with it. But, if you simply cannot dedicate any time at all to reviewing those pages then that's another matter; I would respect your decision though. The truth is that I want a detailed review of each page from an uninvolved editor and you meet the criteria since you haven't made any significant contributions to any of them. Let's see what happens though. By the time I get to Catherine's article I'll check with you to see if you can review it or not. Worst case scenario, someone else will do the reviewing (God knows when!).

In response to MSincccc, I don't think doing it in March or April (which is spring in the Northern Hemisphere btw), will make any difference. As I said, nominating an article does not equate to an instant review. You might as well nominate it in April but someone could pick it up in September. Also, lists cannot be made GAs. They can only be promoted to "FL" (featured list) status. Keivan.f^Talk 21:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f But I don't think reviewing an article once we have one say for eg. Catherine's will take much time given so many changes have already been made in parallel to William's GAR. Also you had fixed a lot of citations previously. But honestly speaking, if we were to take it up in March-April also it would be rather convenient now that the process at times becomes long and tedious. In the meantime of course you can pursue your work on other articles if @Tim O'Doherty is not present rather than going for another reviewer. Just a suggestion. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty But you can review Earthshot Prize for GA as Keivan.f previously put it under "Assistance regarding multiple pages" that both of us being significant contributors can't review it but it can be sent for GA. Anyways, the Earthshot cohort will only grow and will have made up of a significant portion of William's charity work by 2030, the year of its last ceremony. It's also already growing. Just try considering the matter. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William, Prince of Wales

The article William, Prince of Wales you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:William, Prince of Wales for comments about the article, and Talk:William, Prince of Wales/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim O'Doherty -- Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Photo of Diana and Yakovlev

Hello, why have you removed the photo of Diana and Alexander Yakovlev from Diana, Princess of Wales? FlorianH76 (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@FlorianH76 We just had a GA review on the article. It is rather skeptical that the image was taken by the guy who uploaded it onto Commons. The original upload looks rather bare and dodgy with no detailed information. Such images have no place in a good article per our policy. Keivan.f^Talk 22:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Links to disambiguation pages

Hallo, In your edit to Muhammet Uzuner you linked to the Light Years (film) which links to the disambiguation page Light Years. I've fixed it to link to Light Years (2015 film).

There is an easy way to avoid linking to disambiguation pages: if you go to "Preferences", "Gadgets", and look under "Appearance" you'll see "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" towards the bottom of the section. Select that tickbox, and whenever you Preview a page you'll be able to see whether you've accidentally linked to a disambiguation page (or to a redirect which leads to a dab page). I find it very useful. Thanks, and Happy Editing. PamD 09:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Queries regarding GAN

@Keivan.f I just want you to let me know that given my present experience with articles related to Royals and nobility and Businessmen, am I eligible to be appointed a Reviewer in future GA reviews? Also if yes, would you mind nominating me as such? If not, would you mind briefly explaining the GAN process from the nominator and reviewer right up to the article being passed as GA. See, this is a query, a doubt that am clearing. This is no assertion and I am just requesting assistance. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello MSincccc.

am I eligible to be appointed a Reviewer in future GA reviews? The way it works is that in order for you to be a reviewer, you should 'not' be a significant contributor to the article in question and be familiar with WP:GACR. The first rule is set to avoid any potential biases that might arise. For example, based on the statistics, you meet the criteria to nominate Earthshot Prize for a GA review as you rank fourth in terms of authorship and are the second highest editor. But, because of your vested interest in the article you cannot review it.

would you mind nominating me as such? No formal nomination is required. As I said, you just should not be a significant contributor and be familiar with WP:GACR.

would you mind briefly explaining the GAN process from the nominator and reviewer right up to the article being passed as GA. As a nominator, you have to be a significant contributor to that page. Typically that means you should be author of more than 10% of the article or ranked fifth or higher in authorship (you can always check this via the "page statistics" in the history of a page). You also need to make sure that you article meets WP:GACR requirements. Then, you can nominate the article by following the instructions set at WP:GANI. Once the nomination is done, it may take months before someone actually picks it up for review. You just need to take a look at WP:GAN: out of 495 nominations listed, only 101 are being reviewed while 394 are waiting to be reviewed. You can avoid this delay if you can find an experienced reviewer that has not significantly contributed to the article you have nominated. Then the review can take up to a week or more depending on the work required and the schedule of the people involved. Keivan.f^Talk 14:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f So does it simply mean that those articles which have been significantly edited by me cannot be reviewed by me? Or is it that for all previous talks in which I behaved somewhat "possessive" that bars me from being the reviewer for GAR of that article? By the way I noticed that Tim O Doherty is not a significant contributor to neither William, Prince of Wales nor Diana, Princess of Wales. Does that make him eligible to become a reviewer? Will I be able to review any of the pages that I have significantly contributed? Also how does authorship and number of edits work? A user might make hundreds of small edits which are valuable or one single large edit which is as valuable. Please explain this as well.MSincccc (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc: So does it simply mean that those articles which have been significantly edited by me cannot be reviewed by me? Yes, that is correct. Everyone is discouraged from 'reviewing' articles they have significantly contributed to.

Or is it that for all previous talks in which I behaved somewhat "possessive" that bars me from being the reviewer for GAR of that article? No. Being "possessive" does not bar you from reviewing a page, but it undermines the value of your contributions. Remember, we do not own the pages and we cannot expect anyone to stop editing just because our schedule does not permit us to monitor a page 24/7.

By the way I noticed that Tim O Doherty is not a significant contributor to neither William, Prince of Wales nor Diana, Princess of Wales. Does that make him eligible to become a reviewer? Yes, that's why he can review them.

Will I be able to review any of the pages that I have significantly contributed? No, if you have significantly contributed to a page you cannot review it. You could be biased when it comes to the content written by yourself. That's why someone else should do it.

Also how does authorship and number of edits work? A user might make hundreds of small edits which are valuable or one single large edit which is as valuable. That is why you either have to have made a large number of edits or be one of the top authors. That covers both aspects of your contributions. Either you have made a ton of edits to the page, which makes you a top editor, or have made few consequential edits that have changed the face of an article, thus you would rank high in terms of authorship. Keivan.f^Talk 15:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Though your work on English WP shows that you are more familiar with pages related to Nobility and Entertainment, I have a request to make here. Since you are pretty much familiar with WP guidelines and the process of GA and FA as such, I had really appreciate to have you onboard as Reviewer for a potential future GA review of the page Mark Zuckerberg to which I have significantly contributed and hope to take to the same status as that of the pages Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. I can assure you of a smooth process and since it might not be anytime this year but sometime in early 2024, I was just thinking of putting forth the idea to you. It would be great if you could accept my humble offer despite this article being outside your scope of active WP work. Regards MSincccc (talk) 11:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello MSincccc. Sure, I would love to conduct a rigorous review of that page whenever you feel it's ready to be promoted to GA status. But, as you said, it may have to wait until next year. We have Catherine's page to bring to GA status, then I have three other pages that I need a GA review on from other editors. Not to mention the hectic schedule that I'm dealing with at the moment due to study/work. That should give you plenty of time to further expand the article, improve the wording, format the citations, etc. Keivan.f^Talk 14:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I have user SNUGGUMS also assisting me. And by the way, meantime, I am fixing Philip's article so that it is eligible enough for GA. It’s currently rated as "C" unlike William and Catherine's which were rated as "B" at the time of GAN. By the way, when is Tim going to publish the next comments for Catherine's GAR? Did you get any indications from him? MSincccc (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

MSincccc Perfect. Yes, Philip's article might need a little bit of work, but it is not something undoable. In the meantime, you can leave a comment on Tim's page to see if he's available to proceed with some parts of the GA review on Catherine's page in the upcoming days. I'm also running on a tight schedule, that's why I have nothing to complain about but I think we need to proceed a little bit further. Keivan.f^Talk 16:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f You seem to have been inactive regarding Catherine's page as of late. But rapid changes are taking place and also it’s almost a fortnight since Tim's last comment. Just notifying you. Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc You have to notify the reviewer, in this case Tim. If he cannot continue to review the article, follow the procedures detailed at GAN to have the page reviewed by someone else. As the nominator you should keep an eye on these issues. Keivan.f^Talk 12:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I had notify him but you got to help me with regard to the "procedures detailed at GAN to have the page reviewed by someone else." Anyways I supported your GAN of William and I hope you will also with Catherine's page. Also I think the procedure will be smoother if we both can collaborate together. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc Follow the instructions at WP:GAN/I#N4a if Tim decides that he cannot proceed with the review. At the moment I'm a little bit ill but I will do my best to help once the review is actually taking place. Keivan.f^Talk 13:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Tim has notified me on his talk page that he will proceed with the review and that he would be looking in over the weekend. By the way, I hope that taking a month or so does not result in a failed GAN. Till the next comments are posted I had prefer keeping the article in its present state. And btw help me when you can though I am also in a position like yours. Regards MSincccc (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Are you done? I think that we have got the two necessary images and that we have done enough for today as far as Tim's comments are concerned. Don't you think so? And by the way thanks once again for rescuing those sources. It might have been a mammoth and time-consuming task. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

For today, I would say most probably. I need a break too. Keivan.f^Talk 17:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

November 2023 (2)

Do you ever start a section on an article's talk page to discuss a reversal, or do you always just ignore policy on that, revert again and make proclamations in edit summaries, like you again did here? We all have basic editing rules to follow. That includes you. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing Ever heard of WP:3R? Everyone's allowed to revert at least once with a reasonable edit summary and make an attempt to convince the other editor. We don't need to write 5 paragraphs on trivial matters such as this. Keivan.f^Talk 22:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

You chose sarcasm rather than clearly relpying to my question: "Do you ever start a section on an article's talk page to discuss a reversal?" Sad. Clarity is never trivial. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not being sarcastic; I'm being practical. Clarity can sometimes be provided in a sentence or two. In response to your question, yes, I do discuss reversals in more detail on a talk page when the matter cannot be explained briefly, or if there is the chance of an edit war because feelings are running high. Keivan.f^Talk 22:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I asked you. Your disinclinatiom to answer a perfectly clear question, relevant to your Wikipedia work, is duly noted. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You asked about starting discussions on talk pages when my edits get reverted. In a nutshell, I said yes, only when I need to go into details that cannot be explained in a convincing edit summary to the other editor. You may like the answer or you may not. Also, since I have restored the original wording on Harry's article I don't see the purpose in carrying out this discussion further. Keivan.f^Talk 13:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

camilla and sarah signatures

the signatures you requested at the workshop about a year ago have been nominated for deletion.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:UK-Royal-Signature_CamillaR.svg

i have no stake in this, i just thought you might want to know. cheers! --Lommes (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

same now for https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UK-Royal-Signature_Edward.svg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UK-Royal-Signature_William.svghttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UK-Royal-Signature_William.svg --Lommes (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lommes. Sorry for the delayed response. Some health issues prevented me from being as active as I would liked to have been over the past couple of days, but now that I'm feeling better I'm trying to catch up with everything.

Thanks for notifying me about this situation. I am keeping an eye on it. It all started when Charles III's signature was nominated for deletion and it has had a domino effect ever since. Whatever the outcome of these discussions, I know that it is possible to host them on EN Wiki alone rather than the Commons. That's what happened with Sophie's signature. That way nobody's efforts will not go to waste. Let's see what happens. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 01:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f and @Lommes William's signature has also been nominated for deletion. By the way, retaining signatures also is not a sound idea. If they go forward, we should possibly be removing them. Signatured on public domain are susceptible to misuse after all. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc Yes, I'm aware of that. And, no, we have hundreds of signatures of public figures available on Wikipedia. It is not about misuse. It's due to the fact that in the UK signatures are typically protected by copyright laws, that's why they cannot be hosted on the Commons. Keivan.f^Talk 14:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f acknowledged --Lommes (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

GAs

Hello Keivan, just wanted to ensure that you get acquainted with user SNUGGUMS as both he and I are working on the article Mark Zuckerberg. I hope you remember that you agreed to my proposal of becoming the article's GA reviewer once nominated. Regards MSincccc (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I do remember. I suppose you guys are still carrying out the necessary changes on that page, and as I mentioned earlier I have to get Catherine's page and three other pages out of the way by early 2024, by which time I suppose Zuckerberg's article will be ready for review. Keivan.f^Talk 23:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

If you will agree to it, I won't be available on weekdays now at least until the 18th given my status as a Student. Thus we had better proceed and speedily wrap up Catherine's GA after that and before Christmas. But till then we can't and after all Tim is busy for now. So what I am proposing is getting Catherine to GA from between 18th and 25th, 26th at the most. But no major fixes and comments before that if you would agree. Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

That's kinda out of my hands. It depends on when the reviewer drops the next comments. Personally I don't want this to drag on forever because I have other commitments both in and out of Wikipedia. My personal opinion is that whoever has the chance to make the suggested changes should implement them and everyone else can catch up one or two days later. The article is not changing drastically anyway, so each person's track record should be easy to follow. That being said, we can expect some comments from Tim over this weekend, but I doubt he'll be making any comments during next week so you should be good. Keivan.f^Talk 03:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f There is a user who considers my GA nomination for Catherine's page to be a drive-by nomination. I don't see any reason why it should be so. Bettydaisies is inactive and you are fine with me nominating the article after all I have also significantly contributed to it. Also it would be a bad idea to abandon the GA at this moment. By the way, in the end has to happen happens. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc Well, I had told you that you did not meet the criteria to nominate the article. But there is no reason to panic. I have already explained it to them that it was my aim to bring the article to GA status anyway and you have been in touch with me and been very cooperative throughout the entire process. There will be no need to abandon the review considering the amount of efforts that has been made so far. But, remember that in the future you must meet those criteria before jumping to nominate any articles. Keivan.f^Talk 13:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f But is authorship and number of edits both important? And anyway in that case in your absence it would be difficult to nominate any of the related articles as such for FA or GA. If I can actually contribute on a daily basis, does authorship really matter that much? They are thinking about this now. Because I feel I have contributed and thus found it necessary to nominate. You yourself once stated that one either has to have a large no of reasonable and constructive edits or rank high in terms of authorship. And also note that Tim took Charles III's page to GA without having 10%+ authorship but just because of a large no of constructive edits. In that case even I am as eligible to nominate given my significant contribs and I being among the top 10 in terms of authorship for these pages. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Would you please be generous enough to reply the above? MSincccc (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f If we were to take either of William or Catherine's page to FA status in future please note that I am working as much as you. Of course you worked harder when you archived all the cites but then even I deserve to be associated with the successful GA/FA. Don't you think so? Would it then be a better option then to co-nominate in future that is with both of our names as nominators? Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc First things first, I don't set up the rules. These are guidelines that have been provided through consensus to ensure that people don't nominate pages for a GA/FA review when in fact they don't have any clue as to what has been cited inside the page, what the relevant details are, etc. I have seen countless nominations fail because of that. So the other two users were right to raise concerns as a precautionary measure to ensure that you were aware of what you had got yourself into. That being said, I am not discouraging you from nominating articles that you are passionate about (Mark Zuckerberg is one of them I suppose). I am merely warning you to be prepared for potential challenges of this nature that might arise, so it is always better to consult with each page's top contributor in terms of authorship or number of edits, before proceeding to nominate it. The concept of co-nominating a page does not formally exist to the best of my knowledge (I have to check), but interested users can always participate and help during the process and take credit for it (you did it for William's page; I am doing it for Catherine's). Keivan.f^Talk 16:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I am always there among the top three in terms of no. of edits for the pages I propose to take to GA/FA. For William's article I am fourth in terms of authorship and third in case of edits. For Catherine's I am second in terms of edits and I am now sixth in terms of authorship. For Zuckerberg's article I have made the third highest no. of edits. And in his article all those who rank high in terms of authorship are either inactive or long left editing the article actively. Hence I got user SNUGGUMS the article's topmost contributor in terms of edits and I am within the top 15 in terms of authorship. It will be co-nominated though at the time of GAR, note that. Reply if you can. Hope to get Catherine to GA status in the next fortnight or so. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I think enough work has been done for today on Catherine's page including all those long-drawn discussions. Don't you think so? The page looks fine now until Tim posts his next comments. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f This is of course a recent thing. But to notify you just because you have been so kind, co-operative and generous to me (just like me to you at times) I am now sixth in terms of authorship on Catherine's page as stated on WP:GAI. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc It's good that you have come this far. You were not, however, ranking that high in terms of edits and authorship when you went ahead with your nomination for Catherine's page. That's what triggered the enquiry by the other users. Glad that you are now keeping track of everything. With regards to Tim's comments, I have seen them and I have implemented some changes that I felt were necessary. I will probably take a look at everything again by the end of today or tomorrow to see if there are any rooms for further improvement. Keivan.f^Talk 17:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Please not today. I am very tired. Proceed with your other pages of interest. We will return to Catherine's page tomorrow. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc That sounded very possessive and it's starting to bother me. Editors are not supposed to stop contributing to certain pages just because another user is tired or offline. The world does not revolve around you. Please reconsider your approach in the future. Keivan.f^Talk 17:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Sorry for any inconveniences caused. I was not being possessive just wanted to lend you an equal hand. After all, I assume good fait. Lets hope for the best in future. Regards and apologies from MSincccc (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

No worries. You may have good intentions but words don't always come out the way we want them to. Nevertheless, I would not mind anyone editing a page I'm interested in and I expect the same from everyone else. Looking forward to our further collaborations in the future. Keivan.f^Talk 21:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I am just outside the top 6 in terms of authorship (7th currently) for Zuck's page and third in terms of edits. So I meet the criteria of GA nomination without any controversy right? Regards MSincccc (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:GANI, the rule is that 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 they typically cannot nominate the article. You rank 7th in terms of authorship with a percentage of 2.1. What I suggest you do between now and then is actually adding missing info to the article, restructuring it a little bit, etc. to increase that percentage and rank higher in the list because merely editing a page is not sometimes enough. Also, try to get involved in the discussions on the talk page and before the nomination announce your intention there that you wish to go ahead with a GA review. Keivan.f^Talk 14:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

My meaning in saying so was that I wil soon be sixth and thus eligible to nominate uncontroversially. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc Read the sentence again. If you rank sixth or lower you are ineligible. You have to be among the top 5. Keivan.f^Talk 18:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I am now among the top 5 in terms of Authorship on Catherine's page, was already in top 5 for William's page and will be soon for Zuck's page. It needs cleaning up and adding of missing info. And I had to condense the "Public image and style" section for Catherine's page because all that will be a repetition given its presence on Fashion of Catherine, Princess of Wales. Regards MSincccc (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Would you be generous enough and show mercy by replying to the above? Is it ignorance or just that I indirectly or directly hurt you in some way or the other through my editing behaviour (I don't know what) that has kept you from not replying to me since yesterday when you did make edits elsewhere on English Wikipedia. Regards MSincccc (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with ignoring you. You just wrote a couple of declarative sentences that did not really need a response. No questions were asked. Regarding Catherine's page, I agree that the section on her fashion needed to be condensed, but you pretty much copy-pasted duplicate information into the secondary page which had to be removed. It would have saved us time had you fully read the article before proceeding with the additions. Nevertheless, I cleaned it up, along with the citations. Keivan.f^Talk 20:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Well I admit that I was careless while condensing the information but everyone makes mistakes(like you did during William's GA). But I deserve credit for having condensed the info on the main page successfully else Tim would find the article unstable for GA and I also deserve "Thanks" for having brought the matter forth else you will see that the page on Fashion had been in a stable state since July when I last revised it. Also please avoid language such as " before carelessly copy-pasting". Some sort of civility is required and I have been formal and good enough with you to speak with you in a moderate tone. I have sent you "Thanks" when I felt you deserved it and I had expect the same from you as well though even if you don't send one it doesn't matter.

Looking forward to our future collaborations and hoping for a harmonious partnership.

Regards MSincccc (talk) 07:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Making templates consistent

Howdy. I've updated the templates of David I, George III, Victoria, Edward VII, George V & George VI, to fall in line with the templates of Elizabeth II & Charles III. Thus using King, Queen, Emperor, Empress. Mind you, IMHO, Charles III & Elizabeth II's templates should've kept "King of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" & "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", but you know how it is. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I've contacted @Fry1989: & @DrKay:, about this. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

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

GoodDay I'm always in favor of consistency, but in my opinion those terms are vague. Like, King/Queen or Emperor/Empress of where? In my opinion, Charles and Elizabeth's templates should have been made consistent with the other ones, not the other way around. Can you start a centralized discussion somewhere about this? Keivan.f^Talk 17:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

In agreement. I think having the discussion at Template:Charles III would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Infobox instructions

Hi, I see you removed parent details from Tripti Dimri's Infobox in this change. But I see such details are already there in other actor's page, e.g. Deepika Padukone. Do we mention parents details only when parents themselves have an active Wikipedia page? Just need clarification. Waonderer (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Can I add parents' information in the /* Early Life */ section of Tripti Dimri page? It seems pretty empty as well. Or is it not worth writing there as well. Waonderer (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Waonderer: Hello. So the instructions on Template:Infobox person are as follows: include only if they are independently notable or particularly relevant. In other words, they need to have their own articles or be of utmost importance when it comes to understanding the subject. That's not the case for Tripti Dimri's parents. You are more than welcome to mention them in the "Early life" section. There is no rule that could prevent them from being mentioned there. Keivan.f^Talk 14:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind clarification. Waonderer (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Well known or not.

Hello @Keivan.f I need your reply at the earliest to this matter. Please reply as soon as you see this message if possible. As the matter stands, user Horse Eye's Back points out that the fact that Obama, Johnson and Biden are well known but still should be mentioned as "then President/ then Prime Minister" on the page Mark Zuckerberg saying "Disagree, its the "then" which is important. We can't count on people knowing that just from the year". But this is against what User:Векочел did to William and Catherine's pages. Please clarify. Expecting a response at the earliest. Keivan.f your response is needed. Please. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@MSincccc: He does have a point, but it really depends on the context. If you are discussing the matter in a prose and you have already mentioned the person as "then President" or "then [whatever]" then there would be no need to repeat the same thing ten more times. It could get trickier with a photo caption though, because as he pointed out we cannot expect the users to identify what a person's position was based on the year alone. It's just a matter of giving some perspective to the readers. Keivan.f^Talk 16:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

So should I make the changes on William and Catherine's pages or let it stay like that? And by the way, did you read my response to your last comment under topic "GAs"? Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think any changes are required. Compare it to the article on Elizabeth II. If the context is provided in the prose there is no need to add extra words.

Yes, I did read your message. To point out that someone has been "careless" is not uncivil. It all depends on the tone and you should remember to always assume good faith. We have both been appreciative of each other's efforts and I hope it continues as such. Keivan.f^Talk 16:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I also spoke of being thanked. I have appreciated your efforts when you deserved it and made it known to you formally. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The Crown

Hello! I've seen your last comment at the deletion discussion and appreciate that you enjoyed the debate; I know Wikipedia can sometimes be a bit impersonal, so I hope it wasn't too bruising. Hopefully we've given other editors something to think about, at any rate.

Truth be told I'm not set on deletion, but I do think there are issues with that collection of articles and that a discussion needed to be had. I've struggled with a lack of participation when discussing changes to the season 1 article, so hopefully people turn up and a solution is found! All the best, A.D.Hope (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello A.D.Hope. You're right. Unfortunately, it's not really possible to know what the other person's tone is when you are just reading their words. But I found our discussion to be pretty civil. I totally understand where you are coming from with this nomination. As I pointed out in the discussion, I will just keep an eye on it to see what the outcome is. If people decide that a merge is more appropriate then we have to move information to other articles to ensure that not everything is lost. A lot of effort goes into writing episode summaries or critical response sections and I don't want anyone's efforts to be in vain. On the other hand, maybe some other interested users could help with further expanding these articles. Let's see what happens. Keivan.f^Talk 22:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Glad you found it civil, I try to be conscious of how I'm coming across! I totally understand about not wasting other editors' work, and (without wanting to re-ignite the debate here) I certainly wouldn't delete the episode summaries. So long as whichever articles remain at the end of the process are improved I'll be happy. :) A.D.Hope (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Request

Hello @Keivan.f I don't know why but could you please fix my user page? I say this because I am myself perplexed as to why is it looking so distorted. Please do so with minimal changes if possible. Regards MSincccc (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it looks distorted, but I'm not sure if I can help. Each user's preference as to how his/her page should look like is different from others. You should come up with a style that satisfies your own criteria. Keivan.f^Talk 16:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Am I deserving of a "Thanks"? I am just taking a feedback from you. Also please help in fixing my user page by removing the "|" from the user boxes. RegardsMSincccc (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "|" is. Everything looks fine on my side. Keivan.f^Talk 16:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f On the PC version, you will notice "|" at the end of a few user boxes and the boxes in a distorted manner. By the way, I also asked "Am I deserving of a "Thanks" action from you". Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Thanks" action? What is with you and asking for "thank you"s in every message? I edit dozens of pages every day and collaborate with multiple users. I don't go around demanding that I be thanked 24/7. These things should come organically; you shouldn't demand them from your peers. Keivan.f^Talk 17:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Sorry for that but please help in fixing my page. Regards and apologies from MSincccc (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

No problem. I'll see what I can do with the user page when I get some free time, even though it appears fine on my end. Keivan.f^Talk 17:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Thanks for improving my user page. The Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty/William, Prince of Wales task force went live today. You supported its creation and further the primary objective of the TASK FORCE is to bring William's article to FA status. Hence please join. Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I would like to see his article promoted to FA status. I will officially join while my other commitments are dealt with. Regards. Keivan.f^Talk 23:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Could you guide me as to how I can gain rollback and pending changes reviewer rights for the good? I could have simply followed the manual regarding these specific privileges but I found it a more viable option to gain some advice from you who ahs these rights and given that you have been using them actively across WP? Regards and yours faithfully MSincccc (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

This is not something that I can help with really. It all depends on your track record. You must have enough experience and meet the criteria listed at WP:RBK and WP:RPC, respectively. If you believe you do, then you can proceed with nominating yourself by following the instructions at WP:RFP/R and WP:RFP/PCR and putting it into words for the overseeing administrators as to why you should be granted such rights. If they believe everything is fine, you will get those rights or be put on a one-month trial. Keivan.f^Talk 18:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Merry christmas (in advance) and thanks for fixing the disparities in my user page. Further hope we keep collaborating with each other on GAs(remember that you promised to review Zuck's article) and FAs in 2024. Also I had stop bothering you for sometime now (knowing that you have exams so do I). Regards and with best wishes,

From MSincccc (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello MSincccc. Merry Christmas to you too. Hope you are enjoying the festive season. I enjoyed working with you on two different occasions and look forward to more collaborations in the future. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 17:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Given your time constraints wont be nominating Zuck for GA until mid March. Also if possible we should think start thinking of getting a few articles to FA/FL. Will discuss that with you at a later date when possible. One should not be very ambitious in a small span of time. Till then,

Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Queen Camilla

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Queen Camilla you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MSincccc -- MSincccc (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f As the bot puts it, I have started reviewing the article and also posted my first comments. You are free to make the changes and I expect you to collaborate with me. Also would not mind a third person who will be ready to assist like I was with William's GA and you with Catherine's. Rest fine, I hope to get the article to GA in a fortnight given depending on your coordination and cooperation. Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Given that it's your first review and the article is about the Queen of the UK, I hope you are thoroughly familiar with WP:GACR and WP:GAN/I#R1 (especially WP:RGA and WP:GACN). If at any stage you are unsure about something, please seek the help of a mentor. Hopefully we can wrap this up in a timely manner. Keivan.f^Talk 23:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Please check the WP:EARWIG score as its not working for my PC. Sorry for this. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

No worries. It's already taken care of. Keivan.f^Talk 18:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Have you gone through the citations? I just wanted you to do a check despite me having done mine. Being the nominator you should be collaborating with me. User Векочел is making significant edits but of course hes yet to response to any of our GA comments and hence this message. Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)