User talk:Keivan.f

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is 2:34 AM where this user lives. (Purge)

@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)[reply]

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.fTalk 23:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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.fTalk 17:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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.fTalk 18:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite! I'm still astonished by the title alone. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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.fTalk 13:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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.fTalk 13:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I disagree, France24 is not reliable as it’s not on WP:RSP. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“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)[reply]

Collaboration[edit]

@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)[reply]

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.fTalk 03:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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.fTalk 22:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]