User talk:Keivan.f/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Queen Camilla

I looked over the list of sources under Camilla's article. The only thing that seems worrying to me is Daily Beast, which is considered an opinionated source according to WP:DAILYBEAST. Векочел (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Векочел: Thanks for checking it out. I went over everything a couple of times and replaced some sources but I must have missed this one. I'll replace it as soon as possible. Best. Keivan.f^Talk 16:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Fine. But work is to be done on the prose @Keivan.f and @Векочел before I pass Camilla's article as GA. HAPPY NEW YEAR to you both, by the way. MSincccc (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Urgency

@Keivan.f Please I need a response to this. Can I nominate Zuck's article for GA despite the fact that I am not in the top 5 in terms of authorship since the editors with significant authorship have long been inactive. Also please assist with Camilla's GA being the nominator. I am striving to pass it as soon as possible and you are also expected to play your part. Regards MSincccc (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Took a look at the references again. There were some minor adjustments needed but as I stated earlier it was already taken care of. I believe you can pass that element of the review if you wish to do so. Regarding Zuckerberg's article, other than one user (User:Soulparadox), the others still make contributions here and there. But I would suggest you get in contact with User:Victor Trevor and notify them of your intention to bring the article to GA status. I'm sure they would not oppose (if they respond), and maybe they'll decide to help (unlikely, since they are retired). Nevertheless, you won't run into problems during the review and people cannot discard the nomination as a drive-by one. Keivan.f^Talk 01:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

For Camilla's GA work is still left to be done regarding the prose. Will check later and hopefully its passed by the end of the week. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f THIS IS IMPORTANT. All top 5 authors above me are currently inactive on the English Wikipedia as a whole including one who has formally retired. Hence being just outside the top 5 and being most active over the past two years as such would my nomination not be held for a drive-by? Please let me know soon and meanwhile I am working on Camilla's GA contrary to what you thought when you raised doubts over my work on Tim's talk page. Regards and yours faithfully MSincccc (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

None of them are inactive with the exception of User:Soulparadox and maybe User:Likeanechointheforest. You don't have to be making daily contributions to be considered active. The rest of them, including User:Victor Trevor, User:Light show, User:Bbb23, and User:Vipu have all made edits within the last two months (Bbb23 has been editing regularly in fact). Keivan.f^Talk 01:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Victor Trevor is retired as mentioned on his page. MSincccc (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, retirement is not equal to inactivity. He's the most significant contributor to that page so it would be expected of you to at least reach out. Leaving a message on his talk page is not going to cause any harm. Keivan.f^Talk 08:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Let me explain something to you.

Victor Trevor- Made one edit in which he archived all the citations at the time on Zuck's page on 4 March 2022. Has not edited Zuck's page since then. No edits on English WP since November 2023. Also claims to be "retired" on his user page.

Soulparadox- Last edited Zuck's page in December 2014. No edits on English WP as a whole since May 2018.

LightShow- He's comparatively more active but again no edits on Zuck's page since March 2017. Also his last edit on English WP came on December 10, 2023.

Likeanechointheforest-Last edited Zuck's article in June 2022. No edits on English WP since May 2023 when he last made revisions.

Bbb23- Only one edit on Zuck's page after December 2013 though he's active on English WP as a whole.

Vipul-No edits to Mark Zuckerberg's article since December 2014. Only 9 edits in the past year. Largely inactive.

Now except for Bbb23 and LightShow(given he made an edit last month) there is nobody else above me who is actually active on English WP as a whole. Also the others have been erratic in their editing behaviour as such. So they won't be able to actively do that which nominators of a successful GA should. Hence its only commendable that I should go forward with nominating the article for GA. For clarity, I might just ping Bbb23 and LightShow and let them know of this. Have I made it clear? Yours sincerely and

Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f This was no declaration from my side. I really need your response to this. I have justified myself. Please reply because in the end you will be reviewing Zuck's article this coming summer. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

That is fine; you actually did your research and could justify your decision. What I do recommend, is engaging on the article's talk page activities/discussions as much as possible per WP:GANR which lists a post on the article talk page as a way to determine whether you are actually concerned with improving the article or not. You can always bring up your desire for a GA nomination on the talk page as well. I did it when I was about to nominate Diana's article even though I was the most significant contributor anyway. Keivan.f^Talk 07:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

If I am not wrong, you intend to nominate Prince Philip's article for GA after Camilla's is passed right? MSincccc (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Am I correct in my assumption? Again this is not a declaration of course. I mean good faith and we have collaborated so often thus I asked this: If I am not wrong, you intend to nominate Prince Philip's article for GA after Camilla's is passed right? MSincccc (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Most probably. I have another article that is intended for GA and FA nominations, but I might leave that that for after I have dealt with Philip's article. The aim is to wrap everything up before mid-summer. And I have to do a review on Zuckerberg's page as well per your request, which given his high profile and visibility is not going to be an easy one. Keivan.f^Talk 17:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Which articles are you intending to put up for FA and GA respectively? I will be happy to help. Please let me know. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Britney Spears

Why do you think Spears is not a songwriter? This indicates otherwise. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure you are on the right talk page? I genuinely don't remember removing anything of that sort from her page. At least not recently. Keivan.f^Talk 16:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It was User:Popcornfud not Keivan who removed "songwriter" from lead. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Kailash: please post this on the Britney Spears talk page if you want to discuss it. Popcornfud (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

My bad. I don't like arguing, so I'm gonna leave it at that. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Queen Camilla

The article Queen Camilla you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Queen Camilla for comments about the article, and Talk:Queen Camilla/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MSincccc -- MSincccc (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Well I had passed the nomination and even added Camilla's name to the list of GAs. Further I had even added the GA topicon myself only to remove it thinking that ChristieBot would do it. Anyways the nomination is actually successful and Tim has made it clear. I will be happy to help in the future as well. Till then, Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Things happen. Take care for now. Keivan.f^Talk 16:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Will be more careful in the future and also hope that you are pleased with my work. By the way, I just wanted to know "Which articles are you intending to put up for FA and GA respectively" as I would be happy to help. Please let me know as I have been collaborative and co-operative with you and Tim. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Prince Philip

Have you thought about taking on Philip's article for GA, as has been done recently with William, Catherine, and Camilla? Векочел (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Векочел I have actually, which is why I took Diana, William, and Camilla's articles to GA level and assisted with the GA nomination concerning Catherine's page as well. As you probably know, the articles on British monarchs and their consorts are either FAs or GAs, with the only exceptions being Philip, Caroline of Brunswick, and Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen. My aim is to definitely take Philip's article to GA status ASAP, and maybe later on I will work on Caroline and Adelaide's articles as well (depends on whether I can find time to familiarize myself with all the relevant biographical details about them). It would be great if you could assist with Philip's GAN; I did some citation formatting about two months ago, but obviously other improvements can be made both before and during the review. Keivan.f^Talk 11:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I did previously express my intention of working with you on Philip's GA but you said that you had a few other articles also in mind for FA/GA recognition. That went unanswered. Anyways lets assume good faith and looking forward to our future collaborations. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The other articles that I have in mind do not fall within the scope of your interest. They are neither royalty- nor tech-related. Keivan.f^Talk 17:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f And I know that they are entertainment related right? But the very purpose of the reviewer is to not be a significant contributor. Yours faithfully and regards from MSincccc (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Conflict over titles

@Keivan.f Just to notify you that recently a few IP users restarted an old discussion on Catherine's talk page that all the page titles for royals on Wikipedia are incorrect. Previously you had rebuffed such accusations and justified that the titles are all fine. So just notifying you given as of recent you have been engaged in moving royalty related pages to accuracy. I am all fine with the present name of pages. Just that the others need to understand. Regards MSincccc (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies

Hello. I just want to apologise for my reverts to your edits on Wedding of Hussein, Crown Prince of Jordan, and Rajwa Al Saif and List of guests at the coronation of Charles III and Camilla. I did not realise that you were changing the link, I thought you were changing the actual text, so sorry about that. Hope you have a good day! My apologies again. Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Therealscorp1an. No need to apologize. We all make make minor mistakes like this. By the way, it was User:Richiepip who made the first attempts (1, 2). I just saw the edits and thought there must have been a mistake, which is why I tried to make the changes again but with an edit summary included. Have a great week. Keivan.f^Talk 02:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I just apologised to him as well. Thanks again. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Isla Phillips for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Isla Phillips is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

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

voorts (talk/contributions) 23:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hello @Keivan.f, I know that you are well experienced to do things on your own in an efficient manner on English Wikipedia. I don't mind you not leaving edit summaries while making major changes to pages that are hardly edited and where activity is lesser. But while making such major changes such as adding relevant new info or changing wordings or even files on a page that is frequently edited and of interest to multiple users, I had suggest you leave an edit summary. You need not be grammatically accurate at it nor do you have to be precise but just mention what you have done briefly. Need not do that for minor revisions but please do so for major ones. It will be of help to others and will be appreciated. Remember this is just a suggestion from my end and whether you take it up or not is entirely at your discretion. At present only 10.7% of your major edits and 12% of your total have summaries. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f This was not a mere declaration or suggestion. Please reply to it if possible. It would be highly appreciated. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I typically do include edit summaries, but sometimes I'm in a rush and forget. Will pay more attention to it in the future. Keivan.f^Talk 14:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f One change I suggested during the GA review for Queen Camilla has resurfaced again and the other editors have all agreed to it. Check it out for yourself under "Camilla vs Shand". Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. We'll go with whatever the consensus is. Keivan.f^Talk 16:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Well a user thinks that "People" is not "100% RELIABLE" and not fit to appear on high-profile individuals. I have described the matter on Tim's talk page where I also pinged you. Please take a look. Tim also justified the reliability of People and it being a high quality source including multiple instances where a positive consensus was reached upon. Nevertheless, the user concerned is not convinced. He's the same user who initiated the discussion "Monarch Charles III absent from Balmoral at passing of his mother." on Elizabeth II's talk page. You know just how reliable People is. Hence this request. Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I appreciate the fact that you, like me, want to keep it limited to one source. Buit you replacing the PEOPLE citation with the Guardian one to do so is of course not justified. It seemed you also got swayed by the other user. PEOPLE is reliable, you have yourself said that its non-controversial to use it in this case, then why would you while restricting it to one source remove the People one and keep the Guardian citation? Please sort out the matter with me here before again removing the People citation. Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f The PEOPLE source came first. And anyway Guardian has a subscription issue. In any case, if a second source is required, PEOPLE would be best. It has also been used multiple times on the page itself. Please do not revert. In this case, using PEOPLE is not an issue-they use the Palace statement, report the matter, give all necessary details. What more is required? It is RELIABLE. Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I have kept the Guardian statement as well. Let both stay. BBC Nes-it came first. PEOPLE-it was cited next for the second sentence. The Guardian-Some people, including you now, have a problem with having PEOPLE as a sole citation despite it being used so many times on Catherine's page, hence this. Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@MSincccc Alright, let me make something clear. Yes, People is generally reliable. However, per WP:RSP the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source. In this instance the subject at hand (i.e. Catherine's surgery or the location where it took place) appears to be contentious at least according to one user. The remedy in this instance would be to introduce an even stronger source to back up the claims made within the article. Also, The Guardian does not require subscription; its articles are available for free. I even suggest you use it in the future for some of your articles, alongside The Telegraph, The Independent, etc. Keivan.f^Talk 03:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f But remember the only user who is proposing that "the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented " is one with only one single edit to this page. Further he has a proven track record of a disruptive editing behaviour and even more of a threatening talk page discussion behaviour. Remember what he said to you all on Elizabeth II's talk page. Anyways, at present I think it is fine to go forward with this. Expecting your response to this soon and regards from MSincccc (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That's fine. Regardless of their number of edits they still have a right to voice their opinion. And since WP:RSP advises us to supplement the magazine with a better source in these scenarios, it is just better to follow the guidelines and avoid any further problems. That way, if they continue with their disruptive editing patterns, you'll report the issue to administrators, sit back and let them deal with it. Keivan.f^Talk 03:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f He's been threatening as you can see. Tim and you got a glimpse of that on Elizabeth II's talk page and again today morning on his talk page. Expecting your response to this soon and regards from MSincccc (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they have made inappropriate comments here and there. I don't think it has reached the point where they would be facing severe consequences, however, if they make another threat aimed at you (could be a legal or personal threat; make yourself familiar with the definitions), feel free to report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or simply notify an administrator of your choice (could be DrKay for example). This should only and only occur if he makes a threat and/or disrupts the article. If they revert the edits on Catherine's page again and again and ultimately violate WP:3RR, then a report could be filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I feel these are extremely unlikely scenarios and I don't expect them to make any further changes as indeed was the case with Elizabeth II's page. So, stay relaxed for the moment and let's just see how things turn out. Keivan.f^Talk 04:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f He no longer seems to be bothered by the citations but this is what he has to say to you in response to saying that "Yes, I do agree that a running commentary is unnecessary, thus there is no need for speculation either... I'm baffled by your initial insistence to cite their statement, when it appears that you are questioning their recent activities": "Trust the Palace?

We mostly remember the Palace for example saying that royal couples have separated, "with no plans for divorce" then they divorce at the first opportunity. Or Diana will continue to be a HRH! When the Palace issue a statement we should cite it in its entirety and hold them to account as their future statements may be very different and vary on the very same subject.

As for the name of the hospital, the only notable aspect that I can see, is that the PoW is being treated by a charitable foundation. So it looks as though the Princess will escape VAT on her medical hospitality and accommodation charges depriving the Treasury of income." This seems completely irrelevant and off-topic to me. Check it out for yourself. Also @Tim O'Doherty: Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haifa bint Faisal Al Saud, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King Faisal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Request

@Keivan.f Could you please brief me as to how I can use the InternetArchive bot for archiving citations on any page? Your help will be appreciated. Regards MSincccc (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Please guide me if you have seen this message, which I know you have from your recent activity, as it would be helpful. Looking forward to your reply,

Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Use the "Fix dead links" option from any page's revision history to have the bot add archived URLs. I don't remember all the nitty gritty but I think you have to sign up through an external portal the first time you make an attempt to do it. Keivan.f^Talk 05:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. @Keivan.f MSincccc (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Traditional news outlets like BBC, Telegraph and The Guardian qualify to be referred as "work" but obviously not magazines like PEOPLE. What's wrong? Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Isn't the user who has been bothering you with his recent revisions on the page Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex the same with whom I, Tim and you had to deal with in the last week of January? Regards MSincccc (talk) 07:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

My personal preference is for "work" but the "magazine" parameter is also fine I guess.

Yes, I think it's the same user. It's okay that they are not familiar with all the details about a given subject as long as they listen to other editors. They appear to have stopped adding erroneous info to Harry's article at the moment. Keivan.f^Talk 06:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "but the "magazine" parameter is also fine I guess." It is the most accurate parameter. People, HELLO!, Vanity Fair, Tatler, Forbes, Vogue and similar outlets are all magazines. "Work" is accurate only for traditional news outlets like BBC, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, etc. where facts are only reported rather than every single thing about an individual/organusation including rumours.

As for that user, he continues to do what he feels like (which is not ideal) on other pages. This is how 90% of Wikipedia pages are not to be fully trusted. I hope you understand what I mean. WP:AGF and regards from, MSincccc (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Nothing more to discuss here at this point. Either parameter is fine. There is no such thing as "more accurate" when they are both functional. Additionally, any problems with other users and their editing patterns should be discussed with them and/or reported at administrator's notice board. Unfortunately I cannot put a stop to their edits. Keivan.f^Talk 21:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Queen's Anniversary Prizes, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Exeter College and Manchester College.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:The Wheel of Time - Season 1, Vol. 2.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:The Wheel of Time - Season 1, Vol. 2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Also:

• File:The Wheel of Time - Season 1, Vol. 3.jpg
• File:The Wheel of Time - The First Turn.jpg
• File:The Wheel of Time - Season 2, Vol. 1.jpg
• File:The Wheel of Time - Season 2, Vol. 2.jpg
• File:The Wheel of Time - Season 1, Vol. 1.jpg

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Aishwarya Rai Bachchan

@Baffle gab1978: Thank you so much. Given your experience, I think the article's prose will improve a lot in the coming days. Thanks for putting in the time and the effort. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 17:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your confidence; I hope it's rewarded. :) I've renamed "Early life" to "Early life and education" because that section covers both topics.

I've also separated the section "Off-screen work" into two new and one extant subsections; "Business interests", "Endorsements" (extant) and "Charity work". I thought that section was rather jumbled up and confusing for readers.

There's also a confusing sentence in "Business interests"; "The company, along with Wizcraft International Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., developed the Unforgettable Production." Neither the article not the cited source explain the nature of the Unforgettable Production so I've marked that sentence with [further explanation needed].

That's all for now; I was hoping to finish tonight but I don't think that's realistic. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: Thank you again. Regarding the point you raised about Unforgettable Production, I think it's an entertainment/movie production company. The source mentions it to emphasize that the previous entity with which Rai was associated does not exist anymore but it also does not clarify what role she has in the company that was formed after the merger. So I think I will remove it if I cannot find any connections between the new company and the subject. Best. Keivan.f^Talk 04:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks; the way it was written confused me. Re-reading that section, I think the sentence refers to the "Unforgettable World Tour" stage production but it's probably best to remove that for now, though mentioning her business interests in the stage production would be appropriate if it can be sourced. I guess someone added the sentence and it then became separated from its proper context. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

(←) I've now finished my copy-edit; i hope it's been useful. One thing I noticed was the subject's maiden name is used often interchangeably with her married name. This might be confusing to readers who didn't realise she married in 2007 so standardising it to Rai Bachchan, except in cases where context in important, might be worthwhile. I've also somewhat downsized the vertical image thumbs because we don't need such large images; feel free to upscale them if you wish. Anyway, good luck with your planned GA nom; I think it should pass. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: Thank you. I feel that the prose is as polished as it could possibly be and a GA nomination could be successful at this point. With regards to images, I have no personal preferences so I'm happy to leave them as they are. Regarding her surname, I followed the example set by featured articles such as Kareena Kapoor Khan. I plan to leave this for the GA reviewer to evaluate and if they say that I have to pick one or the other then I guess I will take their advice.

This was not a short article so your efforts are much appreciated. Hope we can collaborate sometime in the future on topics of mutual interest. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 03:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Hello Keivan, would you mind adding a few sources and checking whether any original research has been done on the page Royal Households of the United Kingdom. I recently had to remove a section as it was entirely unsourced. The page seems to be in a bad state. Regards MSincccc (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. In my opinion, anything that is unsourced should come off. The page has been tagged for so long and if anyone could come up with reliable sources they should have been able to do so by now. I'll see what I can do about it later today. Keivan.f^Talk 14:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Except for the first three sections, all other sections are improperly cited. Should we consider looking out for sources on the web or send it for deletion? I don't think the latter option will be preferable given this page existed on English Wikipedia even before I was born or you started editing. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Deleting is only an option when independent sources on a given subject do not exist (which is not the case here). Various articles link to this page and it has existed for a long time. It is simply in need of improvement. I have introduced some sources today and might add more later. The tags should remain until all issues are resolved. Keivan.f^Talk 22:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Well can a single article be co-nominated for FA by two significant users? It is possible technically and theoretically though not generally noticed. See I am being very plain and friendly and so should your response be. Regards and looking forward to your response. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Not relevant to the topic of this discussion, but yes, for FAs articles can be formally co-nominated. You only need to look at archived reviews but off the top of my head this is one and this is another one. It has been done multiple times in the past. For GAs it's typically one user as the nominator, but others can assist too. Keivan.f^Talk 07:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Do both users get the credit for the article being promoted to FA then? No this is important for our future collaborations, hence asking. Regards MSincccc (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is a formal process explained in detail at WP:FAC: An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. Keivan.f^Talk 08:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f So would you collaborate with me on two-three FA co-nominations once Philip's article is updated to GA status. Then we could both be content + the concerned articles will have reached a major milestone. I presently have my examinations going on. So we could start in mid-March. Do you agree? If yes, it would be a great. Regards MSincccc (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I can do multiple FAs at this juncture. They are extremely time consuming and should be done one at a time and frankly I already have one on my mind which would take me about 2 months to properly prepare and finish anyway. In the meantime, if you have any particular articles on your mind that you feel could meet WP:FACR it's strongly recommended to have them peer reviewed first. They will give you detailed comments and suggestions which you can in return implement to make any FA nominations go as smoothly as possible. After you have addressed the issues raised, then you can most probably nominate the article although it would be better if you enlisted a mentor for your first FAC. I would say you should start with a reasonably sized article for your first FA and then tackle a longer one. In my experience of talking with other users, pages on entertainers could be relatively (not necessarily though) easier compared to pages on historical/political figures. Best of luck to you in your endeavors. Keivan.f^Talk 15:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I was thinking we could co-nominate and then take Catherine and William's pages to FA status. The articles are near perfect as you can hardly find nooks in here and there which will probably be fixed in the near future. So if you are talking about either of those articles then please count me in. I could have nominated them myself-being among the 5 all-time highest authors and second largest editor to their pages but I would like you to share the credits as well. You see I have never disrupted any process and if we could both achieve FA status that would be great. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@MSincccc No, the article that I have in mind at the moment is neither of those two. Yes, it would be great to collaborate with someone for those two pages given that they are highly visible and lengthy. Once you have time, which I suppose is gonna be after March, you can start with the peer review process for those two pages and get some detailed feedback and suggestions to implement. We can then move forward towards a potential FAC afterwards. Keivan.f^Talk 16:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Would it be fine if I started the peer reviews in mid-March when my vacations start? Then when the peer reviews are done with I had nominate each of these articles with your name as a co-nominator. Then the progress will be relatively smooth and convenient for both of us. Meanwhile you can devote yourself to Philip's GA and your other ambitions. Looking forward to knowing from you,

Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You can start the peer reviews and start implementing the suggestions whenever you like. For FA nominations though, I have to see what my work and study schedules will be like. I cannot give you a timeframe when I will definitely be ready for tackling an FA nomination. Start with the peer review for now and then we'll take it from there. Keivan.f^Talk 18:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f A request for a new consensus as to how William should be described in his article's lead has started. Please join in the discussion and put forth your views. Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f, I plan to initiate the peer reviews in mid-March when my vacations start. If you agree, feel free to join then. A positive response would be greatly appreciated. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I'm sure you can handle them on your own anyway. I'll keep an eye on the comments though. Keivan.f^Talk 07:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f, everything is on track. However, I hope the timelines won't be a significant issue as to when both articles are upgraded to FA status. Given our individual work and study schedules, and considering that we are the primary contributors interested in the Featured Article Status of these two articles, I trust this arrangement works for you as well. Currently occupied. Regards." MSincccc (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f, it would be appreciated if you could provide a fitting response to the recent discussion initiated by an IP user. This marks their third attempt in the past week to introduce online speculation into Catherine's article. Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Awards for Catherine, Princess of Wales

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Catherine, Princess of Wales (estimated annual readership: 2,500,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring Catherine, Princess of Wales (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Middleton 1) to Good Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Many thanks for the message. I truly appreciate it. Keivan.f^Talk 16:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Million Awards

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring William, Prince of Wales (estimated annual readership: 4,160,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Diana, Princess of Wales (estimated annual readership: 5,200,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Queen Camilla (estimated annual readership: 2,700,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

@Keivan.f Don't you think the article Where is Kate? has multiple issues as to the way in which it is written and also the quality of writing? I see that parts of the article fail WP:Proseline.

Also are you ready for a collaboration with me starting from next week possibly?

If you could help user CtasACT and me on the GA review of the article Haile Selassie, that user might review the article Aishwarya Rai Bachchan for you.

Hoping to know your reply to the above soon. Regards, MSincccc (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

That page fails our criteria for a reasonable article on so many levels that I have entirely given up on any hopes for improvement. It's exactly like a page you would find on a tabloid website. But, I agree that the text could be more polished at least.

I would have loved to collaborate but I have other things on my plate. I cannot fully dedicate myself to any serious discussions/reviews knowing that I might be involved in one pretty soon if the GA nomination were to be picked up. If you need any help along the way though, you're more than welcome to ask. Keivan.f^Talk 22:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Well we can't have an FAR presently given all that's happening in the background but I hope you will join the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kate_Middleton and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 21.

I am also puzzled by an editor's stance that my claims of authorship for the articles on William and Catherine are excessive and lack substantiation. I have diligently contributed to both articles over the past two years, while also assisting in the GA and DYK processes. Moreover, I rank among the top five authors for both articles. According to the GA criterion, anyone within the top five in terms of authorship can rightfully consider themselves a significant contributor to the page without dispute.

Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the user in question was talking about you. It's most likely that his comments were aimed at the other user who pushed for the article's creation in the first place.

I'll take a look at both discussions and see if there is anything of value that I might want to add. Keivan.f^Talk 01:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Well if the present situation is here to stay for a few months, it would delay our plans for Catherine's FA. Would you mind me putting up William's article for FA with both of us as nominators just like Tim and Voorts did for Well he would, wouldn't he? Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That page is in need of a peer review. Then, depending on the comments provided we may have to use a sandbox (could be yours or mine or anyone else's) to add the article there and work on it extensively and then publish the changes in the main space. That also gives us the opportunity to ask for the opinions of other experienced users. The article might be in need of more printed references (ex. books) given that it's about a future head of state. All of this takes time, so I'd suggest you start with the peer review in the upcoming months and then we'll have a clearer picture to see where we are heading. And good luck with your GA nomination of Princess Charlotte of Wales (born 2015). Keivan.f^Talk 13:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Well where do I get the book references from? Obviously not Omid Scobie's Endgame or Prince 's Spare. Also I had suggest that we keep the FA plans between the two of us. DrKay, as administrator, is too busy and Bettydaisies is largely inactive. Hence this. Thanks for your support. Looking forward to our future collaborations. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Harry's memoir cannot be used as a source since it's too closely associated with the subject and is not unbiased. Scobie's is also essentially trash, full of disputed nonsense. This part requires a little bit of digging to find a balanced book that does not praise or criticize the subject unfairly. I'll look for some options once I have the time. Keivan.f^Talk 15:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f But we both will be taking Catherine and William's articles to FA status in the future, right? Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

(Butting in) I had a look in December and I found two decent, high-quality-looking, FAC-worthy ones: Prince William: Born to be King and William: HRH Prince William of Wales. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Junor, Penny (2013), Prince William: Born to be King, Hodder Paperbacks, ISBN 978-1-44-472041-9
• Graham, Tim; Archer, Peter (2003), William: HRH Prince William of Wales, Simon & Schuster, ISBN 978-0-74-324857-0

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

References

GA nominations

@Keivan.f I am not trying to hold you up so please don't misunderstand my intentions. But isn't it stated that a user can be a GA nominator of only one article at a time. You are still in search of a reviewer for Aishwarya Rai Bachchan's GA nomination but recently nominated Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh also for GA. Once again, I am not here to squabble and am not being aggressive at all. Just asking because if it's possible, even I could have nominated multiple articles of my interest for GA at a time. Regards MSincccc (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

No there is no strict limit to it per WP:GANI as far as I remember, but typically it's better to have one or two nominations open at a single time, mainly because it would be impossible to handle more than two at the same time. Keivan.f^Talk 15:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Just take a look at this [edit] made by you. Seems to have relevance now. Maybe the owners of the website as well as the user himself/herself had inside information. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I pretty much doubt it. The website is still unreliable and not worthy of inclusion. Keivan.f^Talk 04:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh 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) 13:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Açelya Topaloğlu for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Açelya Topaloğlu is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

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

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Where is Kate?

@Keivan.f An article with the same title as mentioned above has already been nominated for deletion. Considering your previous stance against its deletion, I would appreciate it if you could share your views on the matter. If discussions like these continue and the article remains this unstable, with over 80 edits in the last 24 hours alone, it might hinder our plans for the co-nomination of Featured Article in the near future, as we had discussed earlier. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

We have to wait until the fiasco is over. This sort of editing patterns are typical for articles on individuals that are in the news. Keivan.f^Talk 23:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Given this situation, I may not be able to initiate the peer review for Catherine's article later this month. However, I am also concerned about delaying the process to the extent that someone else may come in and nominate it for FA alone, leaving the two of us empty-handed. I believe we both deserve equal credit for taking Catherine and William's articles to GA and FA status. Regards, MSincccc (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Sorry for that day. You know I am as vulnerable and went a bit off-track as any middle-schooler would. Anyways, I haven't seen you making any revisions on the article of the above name. I think it should stay for the long term so that all these citations and detailed theories and speculations are kept out of the main article. Hoping to know from you soon. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Concerning the article, it is not my intention to have all of that rubbish incorporated into the main article. There is enough in there that already covers recent events adequately. That being said, there's a chance that the spin-off article might stay for the time being. But I'm sure it will eventually get deleted or redirected in the upcoming months as the whole thing will be reduced to a footnote in 10 years time. Everyone has to be patient for now. Keivan.f^Talk 17:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Keivan.f, thank you so much for your prescient and salient contribution to the AFD. It sums up my thoughts exactly. I've just been astonished by this explosion of supposition and nonsense. No Swan So Fine (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@No Swan So Fine: Of course and thanks for your input as well. The problem is that as soon as segments of the media report on something, everyone here jumps on a bandwagon and thinks creating an article is justified. At this point I won't be surprised if we end up having articles on Biden's supposed dementia, etc. The article "Where is Kate" will turn into a footnote once the woman appears in public again. Then it should be reevaluated for the WP:BLP-violating, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOTNEWS-piece of garbage that it frankly is. Keivan.f^Talk 18:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Quite! I'm still astonished by the title alone. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f However, to maintain a clean and concise main article while still preserving all relevant information, having a separate page on English Wikipedia is necessary. It's a bit of a necessary evil, if you look at the whole matter like that. My apologies if my previous statement came across as too forceful from a child. Best regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I fine tuned a paragraph for Where is Kate, with the help of @TheSpacebook:. I think we can agree the 2 sources of Newsweek and France24 are reliable, and are the only sources relevant for the debate, I mean the article has TMZ, Le Figaro, BBC, there was nothing wrong with the sources. But, you culled the progress without any input. Could you please explain your decision to withhold key information in the progress of this article ??? Cltjames (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cltjames Neither of those two sources are considered entirely reliable by the community per WP:RSP. TMZ is mentioned in the article because they had published some of her first photos post-operation; otherwise it cannot be relied on as a strong source either. For bizarre claims that the video was made using AI you need to have strong secondary sources that back up the claim. Reporting on every conspiracy theory on social media is also not needed. This is an encyclopedia not a tabloid, which is why we don't have articles discussing the whereabouts of Trump or Biden's medications and/or diapers. Keivan.f^Talk 13:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes but, your running the risk of not concluding the article, as these conspiracies could actually be true and the addition of the video debate is wholly relevant to the article as an observation and counter balancing argument as fact and not fiction. Cltjames (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cltjames as these conspiracies could actually be true They could equally be false, and including potentially false info on a matter involving a living person is a violation of WP:BLP. The video was filmed by the BBC Studios. There have been no debates among top tier publishers/broadcasters such as CNN, NBC, ABC, ITV, The Times, The New York Times, etc. questioning its authenticity. Commentary on social media by random people is not enough. Keivan.f^Talk 13:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with including a debate or analysis regarding the video, maybe just a sentence and not a paragraph? Cltjames (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It’s WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH if editors actively collate a group of posts to build an argument. If reliable sources pick this AI theory up, then it can be included. Perhaps a sentence saying “Newsweek noted it’s becoming increasingly difficult to produce evidence as people choose not to believe it” or something would suffice, as Newsweek is on WP:RSP. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@TheSpacebook: OK, one sentence would be ideal, something on the lines of... The authenticity of the video is being brought into question as a potentially deepfake coverage of Catherine using AI, this revelation has created a social media conspiracy. Cltjames (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

That would be against BLP. Because the authenticity of the video has not been bought into question by reliable sources. There is no “revelation”. Say something like: “Newsweek noted it’s becoming increasingly difficult to produce evidence as people choose not to believe it, as social media users claimed the video was generated by AI or a deep-fake” or something neutral like that, but more concise. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The only conspiracies that are currently included are those that are well sourced as being spoken about on social media or endorsed or refuted by people who have Wikipedia articles, but they are clearly labelled as being disproven. You wrote the AI video theory as being true when u said “the disappearance of her ring” etc. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, France24 is not reliable as it’s not on WP:RSP. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

“Withhold key information” how can we put in unreliably sourced content in a BLP article? It’s only tin-foil hat people that are perpetuating such nonsense. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You were always averse to this article's presence on Wikipedia. Anyways, would you warrant the inclusion of anything more than that which has already been included to the article Catherine, Princess of Wales in the event of the Where is Kate? article been deleted? There is sufficient information regarding her health issues as if late and furthermore, even the "photograph controversy" thing has been covered under "Privacy and media". Looking forward to your comments at the third AfD for this article. Regards MSincccc (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The breach in her medical records could be the only info worthy of inclusion in the main article. There is a part mentioning the speculations and the Mother's Day photo has already been discussed as well. We don't need to keep bloating the article. Keivan.f^Talk 15:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Well I have added information related to the data breach of medical records in a single sentence supported by a citation from a reliable source. I hope it will do. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Collaboration

@Keivan.f Are you satisfied with the recent developments on the article Catherine, Princess of Wales? It was agreed that "Kate Middleton" would be mentioned under "Early Life and Education" but from the very outset, you did not support the fact that it should be mentioned in lead.

Also Tim has posted the first comments for Philip's GA review. I hope we can round up this one soon. Looking forward to knowing from you soon. Regards MSincccc (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Having a footnote in the lede is not going to hurt anyone. And it's already explained in detail under "Early life", which is more than enough. I don't think we need to hammer it home further that she has a nickname. The readers are not dumb. Keivan.f^Talk 03:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Should my GA nomination for Prince George of Wales be considered a drive-by since I am one of the top five authors as well as one of the all-time highest editors to the article? I have pinged you on the GA review page. Please do help out upon seeing this message. Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

As you have been warned here, you should avoid canvassing and calling familiar editors to your defense when you are being challenged for your contributions. Simply explain why you believe you could serve as the GA nominator and leave it to other people to decide whether you can carry on with the nomination or not. If you are truly eligible to do so, the community will support you actions. Keivan.f^Talk 22:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Do you think that the articles Earthshot Prize and Royal Foundation are GA-table? If yes, would you let me nominate it for GA given my status as a major contributor in terms of both authorship and number of edits? I would nominate one at a time. Looking forward to knowing from you. Regards MSincccc (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not against you or anyone nominating them, but I think some alternative points of view could be beneficial to make the articles more balanced. That means, you have to find reliable sources that analyze or maybe criticize the works carried out by these organizations. I'm not saying we need a "criticism" or "controversy" section, but it's good to have different points of view. Keivan.f^Talk 20:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Tim and Voorts recently wrapped up the FAR for Well he would, wouldn't he? I have initiated the peer review for the article William, Prince of Wales. Your name has also been put into it. I hope you will be looking into it soon. Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Will keep an eye on it. Keivan.f^Talk 18:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I don't know whether you are aware of this or not but the last time Catherine's article had recorded more than 400 or say even more than 300 edits in a single month was in April 2011 at the time of her wedding to William. Regards MSincccc (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Manoto

@Keivan.fKeivan

I can see that you have kindly edited the Manoto Wikipedia page on January 31st. it states that Manoto TV channel has been shut down, however Manoto has only stopped it's satellite broadcasting and is still operating via it's Social Media Platforms on Instagram, Facebook, X, Telegram and its Youtube Channel and it is covering daily News and Ireporters.

As Manoto Page can only be updated by an extended confirmed user, can I please ask you to kindly update that?

Do not hesitate to contact me if you need any further information

Mahoss Mahoss (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I will update the page accordingly. Keivan.f^Talk 20:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Keivan.fappreciate it Mahoss (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dalida - Le temps des fleurs.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dalida - Le temps des fleurs.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) 02:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism

@Keivan.f

Hello there. there is an ongoing dispute on Zoroastrianism talk page for 4 months now. Mainstream Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic, Zoroastrians themselves consider themselves Monotheistic and The majority of reliable sources also claim that Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic.

however there is a certain user who insists that Zoroastrianism is not Monotheistic. he Doesn't accept the arguments we provide, and insists on his own opinions which are not supported by the majority of articles and reliable sources we have provided.

as a result we have failed to reach a consensus for 4 month and the conflict is still ongoing. could you please come to Zoroastrianism talk page and discuss the matter and help us reach a consensus?

thank you. Researcher1988 (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Aishwarya Rai Bachchan 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) 06:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

The article Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh for comments about the article, and Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim O'Doherty -- Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Million Award

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (estimated annual readership: 4,060,832) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers!  750h+ | Talk  18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Collaboration 2

@Keivan.f It would be appreciated if you could take over the GA review for Karlie Kloss which I recently re-nominated. It has been quickfailed by the previous reviewer whose comments have been taken care of. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the topic, so I would not feel comfortable picking it up. Better leave it to someone who's actually interested in it. Keivan.f^Talk 18:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f But wasn't that the criteria for becoming a reviewer? Anyways, the article's way shorter in comparison to those which you have regularly contributed to and is written in American English, something with which I am not familiar being British. I have already made a number of revisions in accordance with the previous reviewer's comments including cutting out uncited or poorly sourced material. Even the parameters are accurate. If you could only look into it once, I would greatly appreciate it. In the meantime, I was considering taking up Aishwarya Rai Bachchan's GA nomination if you are not against it. I will be going through it soon when I have the time. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I am recovering from an injury at the moment, which is why I'm not that active these days. If my health permits, I will pick the article up for review, but at the moment I'm afraid I won't be able to handle it due to lack of stamina. Will try and see if I can do anything about it a couple of days from now. Keivan.f^Talk 15:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Get well soon and return stronger than ever (like Catherine will). Meanwhile, NickD had posted his comments in the peer review, which I have efficiently addressed. Regards MSincccc (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f While I understand that you're currently recuperating from an injury, I hope you wouldn't mind responding to Aaron Liu's suggestion on Catherine's talk page (where you are among the users pinged). His edit seems vague and unnecessary to me. It also fails WP:Proseline and needlessly mentions unwanted dates, essentially repeating already known information. Do leave a comment if possible (there). Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I have trimmed down the "Mother's Day Photograph" section of Catherine's article though I have retained some information regarding the inconsistencies and citations to support it. Just let me know in your response to this message whether the changes are fine, in your accord, as the section already points to the section of the same name in the article Where is Kate? Regards MSincccc (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Certainly looks better compared to what it was before. I restored a source and made a sentence shorter. Keivan.f^Talk 07:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The phrase "which she announced on the 22nd" would be eliminated given the language itself (see "22nd" has been used). I anticipate a robust response from your end, potentially resolving a discussion initiated by an edit made by user AaronLiu. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Would you mind assisting me in bringing the discussion initiated by AaronLiu to a definitive conclusion? I've added "early" before "March 2024," but AaronLiu continues to suggest adding "which she announced on the 22nd" to the end of the paragraph, which is clearly not appropriate. Furthermore, the user argues that a poor phrase is better than nothing, which seems like a questionable justification for edits on a prominent public figure's Wikipedia article. I look forward to your response. Regards MSincccc (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

If they insist on adding a time frame, you can use "which she announced on 22 March". Personally I don't have any strong feelings on this particular matter. Keivan.f^Talk 16:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

If you're interested in achieving GA status for the Prince Harry article, I'm keen to assist. We could co-nominate, as I've recently focused on ensuring the article's consistency and would like to be recognized with the GA as much as you being its second largest contributor. I hope you're open to this proposal. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@MSincccc: If it's your intention to co-nominate, you should indicate it as such in the notes (follow the instructions at WP:GAN/I#N3 on how to add a note). "Albert Wesker" is an example of an article that has been co-nominated recently. Keivan.f^Talk 14:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Currently, I am focusing on improving the prose and ensuring consistent and accurate citation parameters. I am working on this alone, but you are welcome to assist if you wish. I will notify you when the page is ready in a GA-ready format. I hope you are open to this approach. MSincccc (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I had worked on the citations about 3 months ago, cleaning up most of the mess. It's good that somebody else is now also going over it to check for anything that might have been left unnoticed. Keivan.f^Talk 15:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It was confirmed on 21 February 2020 that "Sussex Royal" would not be used as a brand name for the couple following their withdrawal from public life.[369] The Sussex Royal Foundation was renamed the "MWX Foundation" on 5 August 2020 and dissolved the same day. Reference number 370 should be checked, as the People Magazine article cited is dated as being published in July 2020. Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f If your health has improved, would you please take up Mark Zuckerberg's article for GA review of which I am a significant author as well as editor. You had previously accepted my offer to review it. Looking forward to a positive response and have a great day. Regards MSincccc (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll see if I can do so in the upcoming days since I gave you my word. I'm making progress but we'll see. Whether I end up picking it up or someone else, I'm sure you'll be able to handle it. Keivan.f^Talk 19:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Would you be willing to consider taking on the GA review for the article on Mark Zuckerberg? I've made adjustments to the lead section based on CMD's recommendations, following the guidelines outlined in WP:LEAD. Additionally, I've been actively refining the prose of the article in recent times, a commitment I've upheld for over two years. Your feedback and involvement in the review process would be greatly valued. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for making the offer. As you can tell based on my limited levels of activity, I am currently handling work, studies and a health issue at the same time, so my mind is pretty much occupied else where. I'll give it a thought and see if I can pick up the review by the end of this week but I can't make any promises. Hopefully by that time somebody else will pick it up; in the meantime exercise some patience. Best of luck to you. Keivan.f^Talk 03:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

On 18 January 2020, Buckingham Palace announced that, following their decision to step back from royal duties, from 31 March 2020 the Duke and Duchess would not use their Royal Highness styles in practice. They are still referred to as "His/Her Royal Highness" in legal settings. This paragraph needs to be rephrased in order to comply with WP:Proseline and be consistent in its wording. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Be bold and proceed with fixing any issues that you think need to be taken care of. You don't need anyone's approval to make the changes. Keivan.f^Talk 19:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The article listing the official overseas visits made by Charles III is titled "List of official overseas trips made by Charles III." However, the article "List of official overseas trips made by William, Prince of Wales, and Catherine, Princess of Wales" includes visits made by William both before and after his marriage, as well as those made with Catherine and their solo visits. Unlike the article for William, the title of Charles' overseas visits article does not mention his wife's titles. Additionally, Camilla was never known as Princess of Wales. The phrase "alongside either of his wives prior to his accession..." is not accurate because the list also includes his solo visits, and the article title only mentions his name unlike the one for William, which includes Catherine's official titles. A more appropriate phrase would be-For the list of official overseas trips made by Charles III as Prince of Wales,... Looking forward to knowing from you soon. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of a redirect hatnote at the top of the page is to resolve confusion. The phrase "List of official overseas trips made by the Prince and Princess of Wales" is vague. It can refer to the current Prince and Princess of Wales or their predecessors. Charles is the only predecessor for whom we have an article covering his trips, which also include all of the overseas visits he made with either of his wives, both of whom were 'legally' Princess of Wales (1, 2). Keivan.f^Talk 12:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe that you are not against me nominating the Earthshot Prize for GA status considering my personal involvement with the topic. As the second highest author and editor, with nearly 20% authorship, I am deeply invested in the quality and accuracy of the article. Your positive response and support would be greatly appreciated as I can then proceed with the GA nomination. Best regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

As I've said before you can go ahead with the nomination. Keivan.f^Talk 12:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

FAC

@Keivan.f I have recently updated the sources and polished the prose of the article Catherine, Princess of Wales. Would you object to me submitting it to FAC with both our names on it? You don't need to be actively involved in the nomination process; I am capable of handling it myself. I just wanted your approval before proceeding with the nomination. Tim believes it should be acceptable since there are no book sources available for William. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@MSincccc Sure, you can co-nominate with my name on it. And I will gladly do my best to assist as much as I can. But remember that it's gonna be a rigorous process. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 16:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I have co-nominated the article for FA. Is the nomination fine? Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@MSincccc Yeah, it's fine. We'll give it a try. Not all FACs are successful in the first attempt but hopefully this one will be. Keivan.f^Talk 17:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Not a drive-by right? Hopefully I will not be held up again. I have done nothing wrong. Do you agree? Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that should be a concern; no. Keivan.f^Talk 17:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f A user with three edits to his/her account initiated the GA review for Zuckerberg's article. User CMD has put up the matter on the GA nominations talk page. Should I consider re-nominating the article since the first comments by the user are unconstructive as well? Looking forward to know from you. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

You have raised the issue in the correct place. If none of the admins pick this up, you can reach out to one of them specifically to terminate the current review so that you can start a new one. Keivan.f^Talk 20:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I see that all the users on Commons who have voted in the deletion discussion are in favour of keeping the Coat of Arms. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

We have received enough feedback to conclude that the arms are fine in terms of their copyright status, which is why I restored them. Keivan.f^Talk 23:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I hope you will consider reviewing Zuckerberg's article soon or at least let me know if it's not possible for you to do so. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll consider it, but at this juncture it does not seem likely. Keivan.f^Talk 23:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan

The article Aishwarya Rai Bachchan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk: Aishwarya Rai Bachchan for comments about the article, and Talk: Aishwarya Rai Bachchan/GA4 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 MSinccccc -- MSincccc (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Million Award for Aishwarya Rai Bachchan

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Aishwarya Rai Bachchan (estimated annual readership: 2,900,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Keivan.f. Thank you for your work on Princess Maria-Anunciata of Liechtenstein. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Did you want to delete WP:OTHERCONTENT? That will be quite a task, even for you. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I'll leave that to you since you like engaging in endless debates. Keivan.f^Talk 19:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Elissa - W'akherta Maak 2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Elissa - W'akherta Maak 2.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) 17:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Elissa - W'akherta Maak 3.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Elissa - W'akherta Maak 3.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) 17:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Wisdom

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a pop culture magazine. User Nford24 attributes this quote to you among his "Wikiwisdom" quotes. It seems that you have been inspiring him just as you have been inspiring me. I look forward to progressing with Catherine's FAC and hope you are doing well. Regards, and have a great day ahead. MSincccc (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I'm glad User Nford24 has found my comment interesting. We'll see how the FAC goes; hopefully in the right direction! Best. Keivan.f^Talk 18:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Catherine's article has an alarmingly high EARWIG score of 99.1%. However, it appears that the source concerned is quoting exactly the same information as her Wikipedia article. How can this issue be resolved? Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I had discussed the matter with User:Diannaa here. That website is a mirror of Wikipedia and needs to come out to get a proper score, which is in fact much lower. Keivan.f^Talk 12:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f But the concerned article-which is a mirror of Catherine's Wikipedia article-does not appear in the current revision of the article. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily have to be cited within the article for the bot to compare the page against it. Keivan.f^Talk 17:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move for Twitter article

Your opinion on this issue is requested

You have been tagged to this conversation because you may have previously participated in similar discussions and there has been a notable development. Please consider sharing your views. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 23:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

"Alia Bhatt Kapoor" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Alia Bhatt Kapoor has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 26 § Alia Bhatt Kapoor until a consensus is reached. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

"Rani Mukerji Chopra" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Rani Mukerji Chopra has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 26 § Rani Mukerji Chopra until a consensus is reached. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

"Anushka Sharma Kohli" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Anushka Sharma Kohli has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 26 § Anushka Sharma Kohli until a consensus is reached. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

"Kiara Malhotra" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Kiara Malhotra has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 26 § Kiara Malhotra until a consensus is reached. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

"Katrina Kaushal" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Katrina Kaushal has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 26 § Katrina Kaushal until a consensus is reached. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

July 2024 Tatler issue

@Keivan.f Do you think the recent stir surrounding Catherine's portrait in Tatler's July 2024 issue deserves a mention on Wikipedia? Editors from reputable sources such as The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, BBC News, and The Times have already criticised it in their articles. Looking forward to your opinion. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

No it does not. It is the archetypal example of WP:NOTNEWS. Catherine did not even sit for that portrait. Keivan.f^Talk 16:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Could it be added to the article Fashion of Catherine, Princess of Wales given the magazine and the portrait itself focuses on that aspect of hers? Looking forward to your response. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see how it relates to her fashion. It depicts her in a gown she wore to a state banquet in November 2022, but that's pretty much it. This was an "unofficial" portrait published by a magazine who had previously put "unofficial" portraits of Queen Elizabeth and King Charles on its cover as well (source: 1). The fact of the matter is, Catherine is absent from the public sphere and the journalists who make money off her have to latch onto the tiniest little things about her at the moment to keep themselves afloat. As I've said, this has no long-term significance. Keivan.f^Talk 16:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Well, when are we proceeding with Catherine's FAC? Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Whenever other uninvolved editors start to leave comments on the nomination page. Frankly, it's out of my control. These things do not always proceed quickly and some patience is required. Keivan.f^Talk 17:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f User 750h+ left comments on the FAC yesterday, which I have addressed. However, he will only extend his full support for the nomination once other experienced editors have done so. I have pinged a few of them, as you can see on the FAC discussion page and on some of their talk pages. Given that you are a co-nominator, I hope you will also actively collaborate on the FAC. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have my eyes on it and I'm aware of the progress. You have addressed the editor's comments which is good. I'll be waiting for the next batch of comments and we'll go from there. Keivan.f^Talk 16:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Gerda Arendt will be leaving comments once our turn arrives, as she is already very busy here on Wikipedia. Additionally, user Sohom Datta has assured me that they will do so within the next two days. Mike Christie is currently busy and unable to help until June, when he will assist if the nomination is still open for discussion. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

That's good. That should be enough feedback for an FAC. We'll be waiting for their comments then. Keivan.f^Talk 20:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f It would be difficult for Mike Christie to review the article at any point this month as he is busy off-Wiki. Could you please request user Sohom for his final opinion? Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand your desire to get this wrapped up quickly but we cannot overwhelm users with endless notifications and messages. He has already said that he would post his comments gradually starting this weekend. The last time he posted comments was like 20 hours ago. I'd wait a day or two and if there was no activity then I would contact them to finish their review. Keivan.f^Talk 07:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Are there any FAC mentors who might be interested in an article from the Royalty, nobility, and heraldry category? Also, I'm not in a rush to complete the process quickly, but I want to ensure it doesn't get archived due to inactivity or lack of general support. This way, I can submit a source review request, noting that any article submitted should have received several reviews and declarations of support. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The mentors are there to normally provide advice. I have never seen one actually get involved in commenting, though it is not impossible. I don't know any one in particular who might be interested in royalty, but someone who's interested in biographies in general can also help. I think the nomination itself is active enough at this point that it would not be archived, however, as I said I'll keep an eye on it to ensure we won't have long periods of inactivity. Keivan.f^Talk 07:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems like I would have to withdraw Catherine's nomination. Good to see the royals getting the same respect at FAC as they get from the rest of the country! :) ——Serial Number 54129 Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

What is this comment in relation to? Keivan.f^Talk 16:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I myself have failed to figure it out. You can search through the archives at the Good Article nominations talk page, where I and Serial have previously locked horns, though. Also the latest comment was made at user SchroCat's talk page. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, if they are anti-monarchist so be it. We are not under any obligations to share the same points of view. I advise you to stop interacting with them for the sake of your own mental health. Frankly I find sarcasm on Wikipedia to be the lowest form of humor. And their personal opinions have no bearing on the FAC's success. Keivan.f^Talk 17:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Would you help me with addressing user Ssilvers' comments at Catherine's FAC? I hope you have noticed them. Looking forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Won't be able to do anything tonight but I'll try to catch up by tomorrow. Keivan.f^Talk 06:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f User Wehwalt is about to leave comments, and Jo-Jo Emerson has taken up the article for source review. Given that we are anticipating comments for Ssilvers and Sohom Datta in the near future, it's time to get going. I look forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Will take a look at the FAC page and the process that's been made later today. Frankly I'm stuck with college assignments so I don't have free time regularly. Keivan.f^Talk 16:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I think the best thing now would be a complete rewrite of the article. What do you say? Looking forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

We have to wait until the review is over, which could take up to 2 months. It would be a mistake to rewrite the whole thing while other editors are commenting on the prose. I would encourage you to be patient. Do not ask people for comments constantly; it will likely make them irritated. Wait for the comments to be posted gradually and implement the necessary changes. We'll then see what the final result is. Keivan.f^Talk 03:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Her cancer diagnosis and subsequent treatment resulted in the suspension of her public engagements in 2024. Is this sentence required in lead? She will most probably return to normal public life next year or maybe even this year if her medical team is satisfied with her progress. Not all comments at FAC have to be implemented. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, she might; or she might not. We don't have a crystal ball. Once she's back to her duties, the sentence can be removed. At the moment all of her engagements are in a state of suspension. Kinda similar to her father-in-law's though unlike her he makes appearances here and there. If you want to debate it with the reviewer, be my guest. Keivan.f^Talk 04:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f You might as well take a look at this comment made by user Ssilvers. At this point, we have only one declaration of support and not many are pleased with the article's prose. Furthermore, there are major sourcing issues to be addressed. I am not being pessimistic while writing this, but would it be fine if we nominated again at a later date? Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

He left that comment before I addressed some of his concerns on the FAC page. Nevertheless, my advice would be to let the FAC run its course. That's the best way of getting the article peer reviewed so that when you decide to work on it you will have a skeleton based on which the article can be further improved. Keivan.f^Talk 13:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f If you really believe your recent edits are justified, please put it up at the FAC discussion page. We all know that Gerda is one of the mentors at FAC. It would be reasonable to approach her before undoing her suggestions. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I already did. Keivan.f^Talk 16:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

You did. Five minutes after my message was delivered. But we should try not to alienate reviewers as Tim and Gog the Mild had previously said. It affects the chances of a successful FAC. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, well, in between writing a comment and dealing with reversions a few minutes passes by. Keivan.f^Talk 18:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f What are your thoughts on our progress? It's your first time at FAC as well. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

So far so good. I'm extremely busy these days but I'm trying to keep up as much as I can. Keivan.f^Talk 18:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Well, Catherine's FAC has been archived (as expected) and we have been advised to re-nominate only after a two-week break. I suggest we send it to PR before listing it at FAC for a second time. Would you mind reading a book on Internet Archive about her, if possible (despite your time strains)? I will read another in the meantime so that we can get some essential information to add. Looking forward to your response and anticipating our future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw it. Try to look at it from the positive side. No one opposed its promotion and the article is kinda in a better shape than it was a month and a half ago. I agree that it needs a thorough peer review and introducing print sources would also help. Make sure the book(s) that you choose adhere to our policies; they cannot be self-published, etc. We'll renominate once the peer review is done and some reliable print sources are introduced. Keivan.f^Talk 22:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Aishwarya Rai Bachchan

On 31 May 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Aishwarya Rai Bachchan (pictured) was the first Indian actress to be a juror at the Cannes Film Festival? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Aishwarya Rai Bachchan. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan), 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.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Trooping the Colour

@Keivan.f As we all know, Catherine recently penned a letter to the Irish Guards of which she is the Colonel. Should we include it under the Health subsection of the Personal life section or is it insignificant in the longer term? Looking forward to know your thoughts on this. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

No. It's absolutely trivial and nothing more than WP:NOTNEWS. Keivan.f^Talk 07:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Have you reviewed any FAC in the past? Just asking since both Gog the Mild and Tim have previously said that reviewing other nominations at FAC helps in gaining reviewers for one's own nomination. No wonder there is a nominations-to-reviews ratio on the FAC statistics page, which is undoubtedly an important metric.

Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

On other Wikipedia editions, yes; on English Wikipedia, no. Frankly it's quid pro quo. You review one article and they might review yours and it overall helps with decreasing the backlog, but it still doesn't guarantee that you'll get support votes. You article has to be genuinely good. Keivan.f^Talk 15:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Well Catherine's going to be attending the King's Birthday Parade that is the Trooping of Colour tomorrow. Do you think it should be included within the career like "She returned to the public..." or a similar phrase. She has also spoken of returning to public duties this summer. Looking forward to your response. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes, I'm not opposed to including a sentence on this development but it should be noted that this does not mean that she'll be carrying out engagements every week. It's going to be in a limited capacity. Keivan.f^Talk 17:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Obviously she has herself stated that she will be carrying out only a few engagements apart from her appearance tomorrow. What should be a suitable sentence or should that be done tomorrow (because she has never missed the Trooping the Colour except for in 2020 and 2021 since her wedding). Looking forward to your response. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

At the moment she has said she "hopes to join a few public engagements". This is not definitive. We have to wait until she starts carrying out engagements before including any statements in her article per WP:CRYSTAL. Tomorrow, it can be mentioned in the article that Trooping the Colour in June 2024 marked her first public appearance since the beginning of her medical issues (or something along those lines). Keivan.f^Talk 17:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Are the citations I have added fine as they are (from the CNN and BBC News)? The sentence can be added tomorrow. Looking forward to your response. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, they're fine. You can find more up to date references from the same sources once she has made an appearance tomorrow. Keivan.f^Talk 17:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Then I will replace the references. What else? Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Its an official statement now coming from the Princess herself. We are not speculating her; she has confirmed her attendance tomorrow. Why should we hide the references then? Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You're essentially putting in sources in anticipation of an event that is yet to happen. You have to understand WP:CRYSTAL, which is a policy that must be followed. Yes, it is confirmed that the Royal Family will attend Trooping the Colour yet Charles could drop dead tonight and the whole thing could get cancelled. This is why we don't put statements about future events in an article and adding the references there is nothing more than clutter. At least keep one of the two new ones in the article's body if you are absolutely hellbent on having an updated source. Keivan.f^Talk 18:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

This is what WP:CRYSTAL says-Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. Furthermore, anticipating something like the King dropping dead tonight is highly unlikely at this moment. By the way, what do you mean by-...which is a policy that must be followed. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is a policy. Wikipedia policies have to be followed under all circumstances; violating them would result in sanctions, blocks, etc. We 'anticipate' that Trooping the Colour will happen tomorrow. It is verified and widely reported in sources. However, we are also talking about two cancer patients (Charles and Catherine) and they can have ups and lows. Until such time that the event has happened I would refrain from adding anything to the prose. I would also introduce only one new source for the moment. As I said, once the event has happened and Catherine has made her appearance you can update the article with a sentence and a reliable source. Keivan.f^Talk 19:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

When are we going to get Catherine's article peer reviewed? MSincccc (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

In the midst of my studies and work I have not found time to read the book I have on her. A more up to date book by Robert Jobson is coming out this August or September. You should also consider reading a book and introducing new citations from print sources. Once that is done then the article can be sent for peer review and hopefully it will get promoted at FA afterwards. Keivan.f^Talk 19:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Did you buy a book on her or are you referring to the Internet Archive sources? The latter allows you to read an entire book for free after registration. By the way, which book would you suggest me to read? Looking forward to your response. Regards MSincccc (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I do require a little more time before getting the article peer reviewed. That would most probably take place around the first few weeks of July. Hopefully we can get this wrapped before autumn. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm in no rush. In fact, I'm bombarded with so many things in my life at the moment that I would rather proceed slowly here. With regards to your earlier question which I forgot to answer: I already had Nicholl's biography on her but as I said I'm waiting for a more recent biography to be published. Then I will expand and restructure the article using these sources if I find some spare time. Keivan.f^Talk 08:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I don't think that a complete rewrite is required in this case. By the way, the traditional British sources like The Times, The Guardian, BBC News and The Daily Telegraph should be retained as they are of a high quality given that her article does not contain any political facts. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not against using those sources; they are used in many other featured articles. Regardless, I have to see if more context can be provided for some of the information that is already in the article, like her trips; something that you can see in Elizabeth II's article for example. And by that I don't mean mentioning every single trip and where in the country they specifically went, but rather how the trip was received in the hosting country, etc. We have to make sure that arguments that parts of the article read like a "laundry list" don't come up again. Keivan.f^Talk 14:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Are you suggesting that I leave out mentioning some of her and William's trips abroad? If so, I'll take care of that sometime this weekend. Also, what should I do if I can't access a book source on Google Books or Internet Archive? Is there another option? I look forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't remove anything at this juncture. If more relevant info can be found on these tours in print sources then they can be contextualized rather than removed.

Try this tool which is a good start. Use the book's ISBN to locate it across multiple platforms. You can always get some books temporarily from local libraries or rent/purchase online versions (ebooks) from whatever website it is that you usually get your books from; could be Amazon, or if you hate its owner Jeff Bezos you can try BookDepot or Blackwells, etc. These all depend on what format you prefer, where you live and whether they ship to your area, what your budget is, whether they actually have the book that you're looking for, etc. Try consulting with some of the people around you who are actually into buying books. Keivan.f^Talk 16:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I have trimmed down the article by removing a lot of the "She did this; She did that.." material and will continue to do so. Also I have added a sentence each related to the response and aftermath of a number of events/tours covered under the "Public Life" section. Shall I list it at PR then? Regards. MSincccc (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Will you allow me to proceed as sole nominator once I am done with preparing the article if you are going through time constraints? You can put forth your suggestions anytime given our past collaborations. Looking forward to your response soon. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

You can put the article up for peer review any time you like. There is no limit as to how many times an article can be peer reviewed.

I would rather be on board as nominator. As a major contributor to the article I cannot comment on its prose or advocate for its promotion during any potential FA nominations (and I don't think the article is ready for it at this juncture anyway). Keivan.f^Talk 11:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f No worries here. I would include your name as co-nominator, in any case, given your contributions to the article over the past decade. But I would really like to know your opinion on the content added by me recently. I have covered the public response and outcome for almost all major tours listed in the main article and expanded her "Public image" section.

Comment: Article has been listed at Peer review.

Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the article over the weekend. Keivan.f^Talk 02:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Are the number of books cited in Catherine's article fine for an FAC? I had to drop a lot of material under the "Charity work" and "Public Life" section to lay more stress on her more significant activities. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll have an in depth look as soon as I can. Keivan.f^Talk 03:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Plots and summaries

@Keivan.f I ask this only because you have been working on articles related to film and entertainment for quite some time now. Is providing full plots and summaries not considered a violation of WP:OR because you will never find reliable sources (only self-published ones at most) on the web related to plots and summaries of films, television series, and books? Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It depends. You have to bear in mind that there is not a ban on using primary sources but they are to be set aside when secondary ones are available. With regards to plot summaries you can use WP:PLOTSUM as a guideline. It should not be excessively long and it should be in your own words. Keivan.f^Talk 18:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

New book

@Keivan.f Will you be buying Catherine's latest biography (out on 6 August) and written by Robert Jobson? If not, how do you intend to access its pages at the earliest? Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Most likely purchase. I prefer hard or even paper covers to online versions so that's what I opt for. You can order the book on many platforms, including Amazon. Keivan.f^Talk 03:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Can you share yours with me? You see that I am still not even a full teenager so I have to ask my parents prior to purchasing. If you could share the images of the pages , it could be great and more economical than both of us purchasing it. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand. But scanning those pages requires an additional amount of time which for me is hard to find these days for various personal/professional reasons. I don't even know when I'll have time to actually read the book myself, but I'll see what I can do for you. In the meantime, try finding an online version (could be on Amazon or some place else), which is probably cheaper and more affordable for you or your parents; not to mention the quality which is going to be much better than a mere image/scan. Keivan.f^Talk 12:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f It's not urgent. If you can find the time, please do send the pages as the free versions will take a few months atleast before they are accessible on the web. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

As I said earlier I'll try. It's just that I'm buried under multiple assignments at the moment that I cannot really devote time to any extra activities. Hopefully you'll get your hands on the book sooner rather than later. Keivan.f^Talk 18:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Here is the link to Daily Telegraph's review for Catherine's upcoming biography by Robert Jobson-https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/non-fiction/review-robert-jobson-kate-middleton-princess-biography/. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Looking forward to your thoughts given this Telegraph article puts the reliability and quality of using the book as an FA-table source under the radar. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I sort of agree with that review. It's basically a rehash of what we have been reading in the newspapers which to me suggests that he has not had access to any sources close to Catherine. I sort of wish we got a book on Catherine by Valentine Low or Gyles Brandreth but that is yet to happen. Keivan.f^Talk 17:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Well, I got the e-book version of her biography. Should I start reading? Do you think anything significant (apart from information regarding the lump surgery that she underwent as a teenager) will come out of the book? Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, the information on her surgery back in college was already in public domain since at least 2019. It was just rehashed by Jobson. By all means, give the book a read, there's no harm in it. It's just that I don't completely rely on his word as a biographer/commentator because I doubt he has been in touch with anyone from Catherine's camp. Unfortunately though this is the most recent book that we've got. Keivan.f^Talk 18:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I will. By the way, did you get your paperback version of the book?

Furthermore, this statement seems to justify the title of Catherine's Wikipedia article-According to experts at Debrett's, a U.K. authority on etiquette and titles, she is properly styled as Catherine, Princess of Wales rather than Princess Catherine.1

Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Haven't had time to read it.

Regarding the point you made, it is a well-established fact that British princesses by marriage cannot be known as "Princess [Name]". See Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 12#Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2023 for a more detailed explanation. Keivan.f^Talk 21:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Opinion

@Keivan.f What about this upcoming article ? Will you support its inclusion? You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:William, Prince of Wales#Inclusion criteria for film and television. Regards.MSincccc (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I would rather have it titled "Cultural depictions of William, Prince of Wales". See Category:Cultural depictions of British monarchs for similar examples. Keivan.f^Talk 18:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

In September 2023 the couple met with new US congress members in Washington DC, which marked their first engagement since the wedding. What came out of this meeting? Will you consider it in the long run, say a decade later? Looking forward to your response @Keivan.f. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps yes, given that it was her first outing after her marriage and was political in nature. Her husband is incidentally the crown prince in an absolute monarchy, meaning that he actually exercises political power and persuasion when meeting legislators. Keivan.f^Talk 19:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Could you please take a look at this discussion and tell me just what went wrong? The user added a reference from the Parade with the intention that it would be good for the article's FAC prospects. I only replaced it with a higher quality secondary source (The Daily Telegraph). Since you are collaborating with me on the article's FAC, I suggest you look into this. Looking forward to your response soon. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to choose the middle ground. Your choice of a source was better but so was their wording. Keivan.f^Talk 06:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Ssilvers#Clarity. The matter, as it stands is, when the user added a reference from a lesser known source, they neither added a suitable sentence nor altered the present one in a suitable manner. They never even suggested anything in this regard. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Juhi Chawla filmography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bengali cinema.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Reverting content without looking into any sources by yourself or others

You have removed more than 25,000 worth of content because someone have reverted the edits because they were allegedly “AI generated” and “dodgy”. If you really have a shadow of a doubt about the sources being “dodgy” or being unreliable in your sense, you better look at the sources and find out what is wrong with them yourself. They are not AI generated either, that’s a ignorant statement, the edits were made by editors themselves and is clearly shown that is the work of actual edits if you look at the grammar and spelling mistakes of some edits. So stop this. 212.104.231.14 (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Stop ranting on my talk page and discuss the issue on the article's talk page where everyone can respond. Keivan.f^Talk 13:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

New article

@Keivan.f What is your opinion on the prose style of this article? Would you be working on it in the future? Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The style is fine I guess. But I'm not planning on expanding it in the near future. Keivan.f^Talk 14:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I hope you have started reading Jobson's latest book. I was lately occupied with schoolwork and Hercule Poirot. Hence I could not proceed a good length with Catherine's biography. Looking forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

We'll see how far I can get but I won't be expecting to proceed that much given that I will be completely consumed with college work. Keivan.f^Talk 18:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I had put it...

On 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident, I had put that a major edit is underway, sadly you still edited and caused an edit conflict. But no problem, as the problem is fixed now that I had to restore the revision previous to your edit and make my edit. I have made the edit you did, attributing it to you. Cheers, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@User:ExclusiveEditor Thanks for resolving the issue. Unfortunately when one edits from mobile it gets rather easy to miss a hatnote. Keivan.f^Talk 15:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It was a banner, not a hotnote. Sorry if I am getting into little technicality here, I couldn't resist. However I appreciate your response. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@User:ExclusiveEditor: No, I don't mind it; what is wrong has to be corrected. Regardless, anything at the top appears collapsed in mobile view (at least for me), so you can miss them if you're in a rush. Best of luck in the rest of your endeavors. Keivan.f^Talk 18:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)