User talk:Keivan.f/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Keivan.f. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

"Moumita Debnath" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The redirect Moumita Debnath 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/2025 January 3 § Moumita Debnath until a consensus is reached. The AP (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:King's Trust Logo.jpeg

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:King's Trust Logo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 05:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Opinion

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Keivan.f I suppose I was correct when I reverted the "Public image" section added to Prince Louis's article. The author stated in their revision that it was done so as to bring consistency with his siblings' articles but the information included was trivial and was similar to the one previously removed after discussion from each of the siblings' articles. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It was a laundry list of his appearances. Had nothing to do with his public image. The only thing remotely relevant to his public image was the last paragraph but even that did not have a high quality source. Keivan.f^Talk 07:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Charles III

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Howdy. You know how WP:BRD works, so please don't edit-war in your proposed changes, at Charles III. Bring your proposal to the talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Justine Bateman, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pacific Palisades and Palisades Fire.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Keivan.f You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Princess Charlotte of Wales (born 2015). Regards. MSincccc (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Points for discussion.

Latest comment: 7 months ago14 comments2 people in discussion

Well I had a few points to discuss here with you regarding Catherine's potential FAC:

The "Public life" and "Public image" sections have gone through a complete rewrite since the last FAC. I have introduced what different authors have said about her, how the major visits were received by the public, etc.
I would like to know your opinion as to how the lead could be expanded (so as to include details of her cancer diagnosis).
Can the "Early life" section be expanded? If not, are there any more book citations/critical commentary by journalists on her early life? (I will conduct my own research on this though your input will be appreciated.)
Do the "Personal life" and "Ancestry" sections require modifications?
The "Charity work" section and gone through major changes but it is essential that its parts are rewritten to match FAC standards. Any book citations and further commentary found in the news will be beneficial.

@Keivan.f Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I still firmly believe that the article needs one (preferably two) solid print biographies cited. You can only then fully figure out which sections can benefit from further expansion. I would not recommend touching the lede until work is done on the body of the article. Unfortunately I cannot make any meaningful contributions in terms of expanding the page as my schedule is pretty much full until the summer but you can focus on reworking the sections bit by bit using an acceptable book (if you have access to one). Keivan.f^Talk 20:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Do you think that Robert Jobson's 2024 biography on Catherine can be used as a solid print source despite what has been said of it by book reviewers of reputed newspapers? Katie Nicholl has already been cited multiple times. If you are aware of any other books which include details about her, please do let me know. Looking forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

If you have any solid print biographies/authors to suggest, please do so. As it is, we are collaborating together in this project. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Kate - A Biography of Kate Middleton; The Ancestry of Catherine Middleton; Kate: The Making of a Princess; Kate: A Biography; Kate: The Future Queen. These are some of the acceptable ones. Keivan.f^Talk 06:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Keivan.f A user has been trying to insert details about Catherine's photography incident in the Public opinion section despite the same information being covered in the Privacy and media section. Please take a look into it. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Well, the user has realised his error. Hence, there is no need for intervention at present. Looking forward to any future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

According to actor Martin Freeman, who met William at the London premiere of his first Hobbit film in 2012^[1], William is an enthusiastic fan of the J. R. R. Tolkien stories about Middle-earth^[2], and in February 2023 it was reported that William and his family visited the U.K. set of the Tolkien-inspired streaming series The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power.^[3] Sources like the Sun, YouTube, and the Mirror are not preferred generally due to their reliability, but @Keivan.f would you consider adding the above information to William, Prince of Wales's article if supported with a higher quality source? Looking forward to knowing your opinion. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It can be added if it had acceptable sources (none of the ones listed above are). And perhaps it should also be incorporated into a section titled "Personal interests" because at the moment it does not fit into any of the existing sections. It would have been nice if there was info on his other literary interests though, something along the lines of the "Visual, performing, and literary arts" section on Charles III's article. You can try and see what you can find. Keivan.f^Talk 14:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Can Prince William be called a "Swiftie"? Looking forward to your response.

[1]
[2]

MSincccc (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You could argue that he's interested in her music or that genre in general but I would not classify him as a hardcore Swiftie. You don't see Keir Starmer being called as such despite attending her concert. The whole thing is kinda trivial. Keivan.f^Talk 16:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Keivan.f You are invited to join the discussion on the "Personal interests" section at Talk: William, Prince of Wales. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Looking forward to knowing your opinion in the above discussion. MSincccc (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I have noticed that the same user has added Youtube links and potentially trivial information to Prince Harry's article as well. Given that you are a major author of the article, you might wish to take a look. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

References

^ CNN: UK:PRINCE WILLIAM AT HOBBIT PREMIERE. Retrieved 2025-01-21 – via YouTube.
^ Baker, Marc (2014-04-19). "Prince William HOOKED on the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings says star Martin Freeman". The Mirror. Retrieved 2025-01-21.
^ "Prince William, Kate and the kids paid secret visit to set of Amazon Prime show". The US Sun. 2023-02-15. Retrieved 2025-01-21.

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex

Latest comment: 6 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

@Keivan.f Would you mind including extracts/quotes from this news report by Camilla Tominey for The Daily Telegraph in the aforementioned article?

Link-[3]

MSincccc (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Keivan.f This is the link to the archived version of the above article. Please do let me know of your thoughts on this after you have gone through it. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

It's too subjective to go in the section that specifically discusses the court cases but combined with other sources that discuss the settlement (either negatively or positively) you would be able to add a little bit to the "public image" section and explain how his legal fights have shaped people's perception of him. I'd say you could give it a try. Keivan.f^Talk 21:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Could you please help me out with your opinion in this discussion? Looking forward to your response. I personally don't think there's anything more to be said after the two previous discussions. Anyways, looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

You're the main addressee on your talk page so I cannot intervene on your behalf but my personal opinion regarding the matter has not changed. Appearances at film premieres are trivial. It's something that members of the royal family have done for decades and, for example, it would be ridiculous to list every movie premiere attended by Elizabeth II to her article or mention how she was a fan of certain plays and movies, etc. If they believe they still have a solid case to make for their suggested additions the discussion should move to the article talk page where everyone can chime in. This cannot be resolved between two people. Keivan.f^Talk 20:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Clarification

Latest comment: 6 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

@Keivan.f I just wanted to check if I have done something wrong. I understand you are under time constraints and that your time on Wikipedia is limited, but I am unsure why my recent messages have gone unanswered. I look forward to hearing from you. I will avoid bothering you unnecessarily in future. Regards. Velworth (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I see no reason for being ignored by you. I thought we were collaborating on multiple articles. Looking forward to your response. Regards. Velworth (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

You know what @Keivan.f, it was only around last week that a user barred me from any future correspondence (I reluctantly agreed). But you, being one of my first collaborators here on English Wikipedia, it would be hard to end our collaboration, considering the projects we’ve worked on together and those we’ll hopefully work on in the future. Your lack of response to my recent messages is a bit concerning, though I completely understand that users aren’t obliged to reply to everything on their talk page. Hopefully, we can continue this collaboration. Looking forward to hearing from you. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Be mindful that I say all of the following in good faith. You should know by now that none of the users here are robots and as the majority of us are adults we have obligations to fulfill in our daily lives which sometimes makes it hard to respond to a message on our talk pages. Additionally, the experience that you had with the other two users should be a lesson for you to avoid pinging and engaging with people ad infinitum. This makes people feel that they are being stalked and followed no matter how much good faith you truly have. And I know you like contributing to articles but believe me, forcing yourself into every user's personal work rather makes it seem that you're here to collect trophies in the form of good/featured articles by hitchhiking on other people's efforts instead of genuinely trying to improve a page. Try to start or improve an article "from scratch" on your own with your own sources and you'll earn more respect among the community. Keivan.f^Talk 04:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Books

Latest comment: 5 months ago18 comments2 people in discussion

@Keivan.f I don’t want to take up too much of your time, but could you suggest at least one reliable secondary source for Meghan’s article? I doubt Endgame by Omid Scobie would be accepted. Looking forward to your thoughts. Best regards! MSincccc (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

No that is not an acceptable source due to his close ties to the subject which has compromised his objectivity. I'll see what I can come up with and let you know later. Keivan.f^Talk 17:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@Keivan.f The article Royal Foundation has been nominated for GA by me with your name as co-nominator, given your significant contributions to the article. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Cannot guarantee active participation during the nomination process cause I'm extremely busy this month but I'll skim through it whenever I can. Good luck. Keivan.f^Talk 14:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

As of 2018, Coach Core has had over 400 apprentices and graduates across 10 locations.^[1]

The above information is currently supported only by a PDF document. Could you let me know if any reliable secondary sources mention it? MSincccc (talk) 06:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with having a PDF as a reference if the source is reliable. But in this case if it is some secondary source that you're after I'm afraid you might have to do some digging. I'll see if I can help but can't give any promises. Keivan.f^Talk 18:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I came across this article, a guide on writing featured articles from 2008. Could you read point number 5 under "Do not write about" in the "What subject" section?

Living members of the British royal family – not only is it naff to be interested in such people, but you will also attract oppose votes from others who do not share your adoration or respect. This extends to any member of the British aristocracy, except for Lord Lucan and that peer who was once a cabinet minister but had to resign after cavorting with call girls.

Not that it affects the chances of promotion of any of the articles we are currently working on, but I thought you might like to take a look. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

That's the personal and subjective opinion of that user, which they are of course entitled to. Any article can be promoted into GA and FA status as long as it has high quality sources, is neutral and well-written. That could range from the page on Adolf Hitler to the one on Mother Teresa. Keivan.f^Talk 17:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Could the opinions on Catherine’s current attitude, as expressed by multiple authors in this article, be briefly incorporated into the "Public image" section of her article? Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The link to the article does not work, but regardless of that I would not use People magazine for analysis on a person's patterns of behavior. You need a more solid source than that. Keivan.f^Talk 17:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

You are invited to the GA review discussion for the article Royal Foundation as a co-nominator. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll take a look if I find any spare time. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 17:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Could you please assist me in addressing the following suggestions:

Given the ... star power ... of Harry and Meagan, can anything more be said about the circumstances under which they left the Foundation?
"Invictus Games". To be frank, that's the only one of these I've heard of as a Yank, and associated of course with Harry. As far as I can see, the article doesn't make it clear if the games continued under the auspices of the Foundation when Harry left.

MSincccc (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's a detailed article by the Guardian explaining how Harry and Meghan left the royal foundation to pursue their own charities and set up a new office and an Instagram account.

Harry established the Invictus Games Foundation after the 2014 games (source). Sort of similar to how William established the Earthshot Prize as a separate entity following the first awards ceremony.

I'll leave it to you to incorporate these into the article. You should be capable of doing this by now. Keivan.f^Talk 13:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I could not find any reliable secondary sources that mention the formation of the Invictus Games Foundation. Currently, the foundation’s formation is only referenced on its official website. MSincccc (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The use of a primary source is acceptable in this instance as the existence of the foundation is not in dispute. It was first backed by the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Foundation before becoming its own charity body. Keivan.f^Talk 14:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I have addressed all of Wehwalt's comments, but you are welcome to review the article yourself if it is convenient. I hope I have done my job properly. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Will try to have a look if I find any spare time. Keivan.f^Talk 18:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

New message from Rexophile

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother § New lead image. Rexophile (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion

@Keivan.f You are invited to join this discussion, in which you might be interested, at Talk: Rishi Sunak.

P.S. The discussion focuses on removing information about his family vacations, detailed personal interests, and remarks at multiple public engagements, all of which are considered trivial for any Wikipedia article. Your input in the discussion would be appreciated. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I realise that this matter has been discussed previously here and here. However, a new discussion has been initiated by the concerned user at Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. You are invited to join the latest discussion here. MSincccc (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

New message from Rexophile

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Royal Family Order of Elizabeth II § Lead image. Rexophile (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Endgame (Scobie book)

Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

On 21 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Endgame (Scobie book), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Dutch edition of Endgame: Inside the Royal Family and the Monarchy's Fight for Survival was recalled? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Endgame (Scobie book). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Endgame (Scobie book)), 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.

SL93 (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Great work, really well written and balanced. It's very strange writing about royals, I love it when I see your contributions on my watchlist. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@No Swan So Fine: Thank you so much. I can say the exact same thing about your works; always fascinating and of high quality. Keivan.f^Talk 22:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Good topic

Latest comment: 5 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Would these articles, taken together, qualify as a good topic? I’d like to know your thoughts on this (as a major contributor) before I proceed with the nomination. Looking forward to your input. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

P.S. The article Prince Louis of Wales could also be added to the list, though it needs some improvement before it is nominated at GAN. Let me know if any other articles could be included. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Under what title will these articles be nominated—The family and work of the Prince and Princess of Wales or something similar? I had even considered including Charles III and Queen Camilla. Anyway, I’d like to know your thoughts on this when it’s convenient for you. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that you cannot really group biographies together like that, because even though they are a family they are technically independent people. That is why I would not group the kids with their parents cause they will eventually come of age and form their own nuclear families. You could have potentially grouped William and Catherine's articles with Charles and Camilla's, under a topic that covers British monarchs and their consorts but the problem is that William has not ascended the throne yet so that cannot work. You can try grouping William's article with those of his wife's and their initiatives but I have no idea what a suitable title for that group of articles would be like; but it should be something that puts emphasis on him being heir to the British throne not his title, cause it's his position as heir that matters not that he is called Prince of Wales. Alternatively you can create a topic on the "current" members of the British royal family; that would cover Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine, George, Charlotte, and Meghan. Feel free to seek more opinions from other users. Keivan.f^Talk 19:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Page split Burgundy

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since you where the one who moved List of Burgundian royal consorts to its current name, this discussion might be of interest to you. 2601:249:9301:D570:F020:598D:47B7:324B (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

GAN

Latest comment: 4 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Can I nominate the article As Ever for GA, or does it require improvement? Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Please let me know if any further additions, removals, or adjustments are needed, whenever convenient. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't remember you being either the creator or the major contributor to that article. Regardless, the reception section needs expansion. The brand itself has also been barely launched and products are not sold on a wide scale at the moment so it will be hard to properly assess the reactions until it has taken roots. Keivan.f^Talk 05:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

[4]

According to the above link, the only user with more edits and a higher share of authorship on the article has been inactive since December last year. I am the second-highest contributor in terms of both edits and authorship. As for the article's expansion, it clearly requires improvement. Your suggestions would be most appreciated. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not here to discuss statistics, but archiving links and moving paragraphs does not count as authorship. What does count is writing the prose. I have yet to see you actually flesh out an article from scratch or write substantial passages on something. Otherwise everyone can potentially collect GA and FA badges as trophies. Keivan.f^Talk 14:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I’ve contributed to the prose of the articles on William, Catherine, their initiatives, and their children, as well as several others—though not all of which I’m a primary author. To say I’ve never written substantial passages would be something of an understatement.

P.S. Please note this is said in good faith—my intention isn’t to seek credit, especially where it’s due to other active editors. Thank you for your suggestions. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Kategate for deletion

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kategate 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/Kategate 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.

―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

You've got a barnstar.

Latest comment: 4 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you for all your contributions to English Wikipedia. I’ve appreciated collaborating with you and look forward to working together again in future. MSincccc (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much. All the best. Keivan.f^Talk 16:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations. The article Kategate's deletion discussion has been now closed as Keep. Hopefully, we can together expand the article's quality. Keep up the good work. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Good. My instinct was telling me that it would survive the AfD as long as it stayed clear of bizarre conspiracy theories and unnecessary analyses of every single video or photo of her from 2024. Keivan.f^Talk 21:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you happen to know of any users with a particular interest in fashion-related articles? I’d also appreciate any suggestions you might have for improving or expanding the article on Catherine’s fashion. Many thanks and best regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Try reaching out to Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion. At the moment I'm occupied, so cannot do in detail analysis on any articles. Keivan.f^Talk 14:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wishing you peace, joy, and renewal this Easter season. Thank you for all you do to keep Wikipedia growing and thriving.

Stay well, and happy editing! MSincccc (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Happy Easter to you as well. All the best. Keivan.f^Talk 19:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

A point to make.

Latest comment: 3 months ago11 comments2 people in discussion

This is an excerpt from a recent article in The Daily Telegraph covering William and Catherine's visit to the island of Isle of Mull:

They have visited the island once before, as university students, where they travelled with friends for an ordinary holiday. Prince William and the then-Kate Middleton met at the University of St Andrews in Fife.

This sentence may be cited to support the argument that referring to "Catherine" as "Kate" is redundant. I look forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Would you mind elaborating on your reasoning a little bit more? Keivan.f^Talk 16:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The author writes, Prince William and the then-Kate Middleton met at the University of St Andrews in Fife. This suggests, as some noted in discussions last summer, that she has not been referred to as “Kate” (at least by traditional news sources) since her marriage. MSincccc (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's one way to look at it. But given that she uses the initial "C" to sign her notes and has been married for 14 years makes it pretty obvious that she's not using "Kate Middleton" as her name anymore. Keivan.f^Talk 19:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The rebranding also faced operational challenges, including a website glitch leading to overselling of products like wildflower honey, as detailed in a comprehensive analysis of the brand's trademark disputes and logistical hurdles.

This sentence, found in the 'History' section of the article As Ever, cites a secondary source of uncertain reliability. Additionally, its relevance is questionable. I look forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Removed, unless the person who inserted it can come up with a better source. Keivan.f^Talk 17:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations on creating the articles Rosa 'William and Catherine' and Rosa 'Catherine's Rose'. I would be interested to know how these articles might be expanded in future. I look forward to your response. Kind regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Please feel free to share any suggestions for improving the two articles mentioned above, and I’ll be glad to assist you. You're also welcome to review the article on Orla and share your thoughts at your convenience. Kind regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

At the moment I will not be working heavily on any articles as I have to go through another busy period in my life. Good luck to you in your endeavors. Keivan.f^Talk 17:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Does the [fact] that Queen Camilla has adopted a new rescue dog deserve a mention in her Wikipedia article? Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

It's already mentioned. Keivan.f^Talk 20:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Official overseas trips

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You are a significant contributor to our list of Charles III's international travel. I would like your help on a similar page for Princess Anne. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I'll try my best to have a look and see if I can contribute as soon as my schedule permits. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 00:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Notify

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I understand that you're not in a position to take on anything substantial at the moment, but I felt it only right to inform you of the following discussions concerning the recently added images in Catherine’s article:

Your input would be appreciated if convenient, but no worries if not. Kind regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Article of Pashmina Roshan

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey @Keivan.f thanks for contributing to my article means which I wrote on Pashmina Roshan. Can you please help me in improving it more? Btw thanks for your help dear. Neil Bahubali (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You're welcome. My edits were mostly concerning the article's esthetics. I'm afraid I cannot contribute through expanding the existing information since it's a subject that I'm not 100% familiar with. Feel free to make further additions while adhering to WP:BLP. I'll try to have a look again when I find some time. Keivan.f^Talk 04:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Opinion

Latest comment: 2 months ago8 comments2 people in discussion

I just noticed that the List of official overseas trips made by William, Prince of Wales, and Catherine, Princess of Wales has been split into two separate articles. As it stands, neither of us appears to have retained any authorship on the list of overseas visits.

It seems to be a case of a copy-paste split where the edit history hasn’t carried over. A bit frustrating, given the work we put in. MSincccc (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I mean the authorship issue aside, there is the issue of overlap, but given that they travel separately a lot then maybe the split can be justified. After all, other similar lists cover individuals separately, namely, List of official overseas trips made by Charles III, List of state visits made by Elizabeth II, List of official overseas trips made by George VI, List of official overseas trips made by Edward VIII, List of official overseas trips made by George V, List of official overseas trips made by Edward VII, and List of foreign visits made by Queen Victoria. Note the spouses are not mentioned besides the monarchs. Keivan.f^Talk 19:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I don’t have any objection to the article being split — it may well make sense given their separate travel schedules. But there’s a proper procedure to ensure authorship is preserved in such cases. As things stand, neither of us has been credited for our contributions, despite the time we both spent updating the list.

Would you please help me sort this out? A history merge should fix the attribution issue. MSincccc (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

You are credited as a top contributor for List of official overseas trips made by William, Prince of Wales, as the page was moved and the history was merged automatically. The other page, List of official overseas trips made by Catherine, Princess of Wales, has been newly created but the author has followed protocol and given proper attribution in their first edit. There is nothing left to do here. Keivan.f^Talk 19:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I realise that. However, the article on the list of official overseas visits by Catherine was created simply by copy-pasting the details of her visits—whether undertaken alone or alongside William—from the original article. MSincccc (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes and even though the user did copy paste from the original page he "attributed" that edit to the authors of the original page (i.e. us and a bunch of other people). From a WP:COPYVIO point of view he has done his due diligence. And with the history of the original page being merged into List of official overseas trips made by William, Prince of Wales, there is not a plausible way to replicate that specific page history into the newly created list. You may make some inquiries about it through some administrators but it's not something that's possible to the best of my knowledge unless they have come up with a new procedure for it. Keivan.f^Talk 01:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Just a note to let you know that List of official overseas trips made by William, Prince of Wales, and Catherine, Princess of Wales has been nominated for deletion. MSincccc (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It's advisable per WP:2DABS. Keivan.f^Talk 18:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello and help?

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Keivan.f. I'm making contact for a few reasons. Firstly you responded to a Talk page regarding the 'Oprah with Meghan and Harry' page a while ago and I found your response helpful. I'm not very familiar with Wiki editing but you clearly are so there is that too! Finally you seem quite interested in the British royal family so another reason I thought I'd reach out!

There is an article regarding Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale that I feel needs some attention. The introduction includes a reference to the debunked theory that he was Jack the Ripper. It reads poorly and is uncited. Over the years some attempts have been made to reform or remove this section but there is a particular user who seems to feel it should remain and very quickly reverts edits. It has been discussed in the Talk:Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale but this has not gone anywhere.

As I mentioned I'm not too familiar with editing on this site so just wondered if you had any thoughts or, of course, wanted to see for yourself!

Thanks and take care. RedTeme (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Please rewrite this paragraph

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, sorry to write this here but the Israel-Iran chat page is completely locked to me and so I don't really know where else to make this recommendation.

Anyways, I want to draw attention to a horribly written paragraph in this otherwise decent article that I strongly feel should be scrapped and/or rewritten. That's all.

"The IDF published a message in Farsi saying that it is receiving a lot of messages from Iranians which include "fear, despair, and anger over what is happening in Iran" and asked those who wish to contact Israeli should do so through a link to the Mossad website. The IDF message was described as unusual by Fabian."

1) Run-on sentences 2) Contact Israeli? Israeli what? Nix the i if they meant Israel 3) Who is Fabian? Huh? He's not mentioned anywhere else in the article, before or after, nor is the name linked to a dedicated article. This sentence just feels out of place and devoid of any context.

Thanks Mitman93 (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Done. Keivan.f^Talk 05:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Shanaya Kapoor

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please expand this article. Sush150 (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Tatler's Social Power Index

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I was aware of the above list when it was published yesterday. But I asked myself: Is this going to be notable in the long term? Also, is it worth including this at a time when I am trying to cut down the number of bytes? At a time when they are among the most influential people in the world, it is natural for major publications to include her and William on such lists. Do all of them have to be recorded?

P.S. I realise this is a rather long question (given your limited time), but I would appreciate your response. MSincccc (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

At a time when they are among the most influential people in the world. You don't know what the future holds. One moment a person is popular, the other moment they are not. An article needs to have a dynamic element to it, meaning that things do get added and removed as necessary. If they ever appear on this list or a similar list again, then all of them can be combined into one sentence under one citation as has been done for the other lists in which their names regularly appear. Keivan.f^Talk 17:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Would it be worth noting that William and Catherine have now been given the authority to grant royal warrants? Town & Country, June 2025.

Not sure if it’s worth including, especially as similar info isn’t mentioned in the articles for Charles, Philip, or the Queen Mother. I did wonder whether it might become more relevant later, depending on how actively they use the role. Looking forward to knowing your thoughts on this. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's something that's worthy of a mention in their articles. There are a gazillion of royal figures who have been issuing grants over centuries. Their addition to the list should be covered at List of royal warrant holders of the British royal family. Keivan.f^Talk 17:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why didn’t you edit Marie Antoinette? Lukepowerll (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Must have missed it. Regardless, changes like this that are on a mass scale need consensus. A discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility would have worked. Or, you could bring it up at Template talk:Infobox royalty if you believe coats of arms should be a permanent parameter in each royal figure's infobox. A formal WP:RfC on either of those talk pages or the talk page of one of the pages you edited could also work and it may draw in more comments. Keivan.f^Talk 20:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

A note for you.

Latest comment: 30 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hope you've a great day tomorrow. Thank you for all your work on English Wikipedia and looking forward to potential future collaborations. Best wishes from a fellow Leo, MSincccc (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all the best wishes. Cheers! Keivan.f^Talk 21:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Request to Reconsider Valid Addition to Shivangi Joshi Article

Latest comment: 28 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi @Keivan.f,

Firstly, thank you for your excellent and consistent contributions to Wikipedia. Your efforts in improving and maintaining the quality of articles are truly appreciated.

I’m writing to respectfully request reconsideration of a previously removed section from the article on Shivangi Joshi. The content, which includes her rankings in various media lists by reliable publications such as Eastern Eye and The Times of India, was reportedly removed citing reasons like promotion or sockpuppetry.

However, I’d like to point out that:

The information is **well-referenced**, **verifiable**, and aligns with **Wikipedia’s content policies**.

**Similar content appears** on the articles of other actors such as:

- Deepika Padukone

- Alia Bhatt

- Hina Khan

- Jennifer Winget

- Tejasswi Prakash

- Rupali Ganguly

- Ashi Singh

If such content is acceptable for these articles, removing it only from Shivangi Joshi’s page feels **inconsistent and unfair**. These rankings form a significant part of her media image and public reception and have been covered by reliable, mainstream media.

Here is the proposed content with all necessary references:

In UK-based newspaper Eastern Eye's List of 50 Sexiest Asian Women, she ranked 17th in 2017,^[2] 5th in 2018,^[3] while she ranked 7th in 2019.^[4] In 2020, same publication ranked her 26th in Top 50 Asian celebrities list,^[5] and also featured her in their dynamic dozen for the decade list.^[6] In 2022, same publication also featured her in the Top 30 under 30 Global Asian Stars list.^[7] In 2018, Times ranked her 5th in the Top 10 Popular Actress in Television.^[8] In The Times of India's 20 Most Desirable Women on Indian Television List, she ranked 7th in 2018, 8th in 2019 and ranked 9th in 2020.^[9]^[10]^[11] In 2023, she ranked 9th in Times Now "Popular Television Actresses" list.^[12]

Thanks again for your time, and I hope you’ll consider adding this content back for accuracy, fairness, and consistency across Wikipedia.

Best regards Kirti15 (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello. It's done for now after a little bit of trimming, though it's not a topic that I'm entirely familiar with and in the case of a dispute I will defer to editors who have been contributing to that page for a long period of time. That being said, I also noticed you posted this message on multiple talk pages. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Canvassing as spreading the same message over multiple talk pages is not encouraged. And stick to one account only at all times to avoid Sockpuppetry issues. Having multiple accounts to push a single agenda is not tolerated at all by the community. Keivan.f^Talk 06:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Kirti15 (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

References

^ "2018 Trustees Report" (PDF). The Royal Foundation. Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 January 2024. Retrieved 27 October 2020.
^ "Sexiest Asian Women (2017) List". Hindustan Times. 7 December 2017. Archived from the original on 7 December 2017. Retrieved 7 December 2017.
^ "Shivangi Joshi ranked 5th in the list of the Sexiest Asian Women 2018; beau Mohsin Khan is all hearts". Pinkvilla. Retrieved 8 December 2018.
^ "Alia Bhatt named Sexiest Asian Female of 2019; Deepika leads the decade chart". The Economic Times. Retrieved 17 December 2019.
^ "Top 50 Asian celebrities of 2020: A countdown of Global stars who broke boundaries, did great work and made a positive impact!". Eastern Eye. 12 December 2020.
^ Nazir, Asjad (9 January 2020). "Dynamic dozen for the decade". Eastern Eye. Retrieved 17 September 2024.
^ "Shining bright: Top 30 under 30 global Asian stars". Eastern Eye. 20 January 2022. Retrieved 20 January 2022.
^ "Top 10 TV Actress". The Times of India. 2 March 2018. Retrieved 17 August 2024.
^ "Meet TV's most desirable actresses". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 12 May 2019. Retrieved 12 May 2019.
^ "Hina Khan To Shehnaz Gill: Meet The Times Top 20 Most Desirable Women On TV 2019". The Times of India. Retrieved 8 September 2020.
^ "Erica Fernandes is The Times Most Desirable Woman on TV 2020; Check full list here". The Print. Retrieved 11 June 2021.
^ "9 Indian TV actresses who are more famous than Bollywood Stars". Times Now. 23 May 2023. Retrieved 5 January 2025.

Recent revisions (and an apology)

Latest comment: 27 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Apologies for dropping the People citation—I forgot to spot-check in this case. I also relied on my judgement and a few sources in deciding not to include the mention of her recent mini display. Do you think that’s viable long term? Best regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

No worries. I was not going to mention the mini-display but then you need some sort of narrative to avoid the prose reading like a laundry list. Like, people might look at it and say 'Well, what does she actually do as a patron?' Examples like this can provide some context. If she does other such displays for this museum and her other similar patronages, then they all can be combined together IMO. Keivan.f^Talk 11:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Lead Section Cleanup Proposal

Latest comment: 26 days ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I'd like to propose a cleanup and rewrite of the current lead section of this article. The existing lead is somewhat disorganized and doesn't follow standard Wikipedia style guidelines for biographies.

Here’s a revised version that improves clarity, neutrality, and formatting:

Shivangi Joshi (pronounced [ʃɪˈʋaːŋɡi ˈd͡ʒoːʃi]; born 18 May 1998)^[1] is an Indian actress known for her work on Hindi television. Noted by critics for portraying powerful roles on-screen.^[2] One of the highest-paid television actresses in India,^[3] She is a recipient of several accolades including one ITA Award, one Indian Telly Award and three Gold Awards.^[4]

Joshi began her acting career potraying Trisha in Khelti Hai Zindagi Aankh Micholi (2013). Later she portrayed Aayat Haider in Beintehaa (2013), Poonam Thakur in Begusarai (2015-2016), further she received renewed recognition for her performance as Naira Singhania Goenka in Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai (2016-2021), which earned her a ITA Award for Best Actress - Popular. Then she potrayed Anandi Chaturvedi in Balika Vadhu 2 (2021-2022), Aradhana Sahni in Barsatein – Mausam Pyaar Ka (2023-2024) and Bhagyashree in Bade Achhe Lagte Hain 4 (2025).

Let me know if there are any objections or suggestions. If there's consensus, you can correct or rewrite the lead. Kirti15 (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

It would be best to bring this up at Talk:Shivangi Joshi. If there is no one opposing it there then you can proceed with the changes yourself. Keivan.f^Talk 12:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

ok Kirti15 (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Keivan.f Thank you for your suggestion. I have have not posted the request at Talk:Shivangi Joshi, because the page does not seem to be responsive so far. Since I am not an extended confirmed user, I am unable to make the necessary changes myself.

If there are no objections, would you be willing to assist in implementing the changes? Your help would be greatly appreciated. Kirti15 (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Done. Keivan.f^Talk 20:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

thank Kirti15 (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

References

^ "The television actress turns 26 today, so to mark the occasion her Barsatein Mausam Pyaar Ka co-star Kushal ..." NDTV. 18 May 2024. Retrieved 16 November 2024.
^ "Shivangi Joshi makes a strong comeback as a boxer in Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai". The Times of India. 15 January 2021. Retrieved 17 August 2024.
^ "Highest Paid Television Actresses". DNA India. 12 August 2023. Retrieved 12 August 2024.
^ "Check out 10 facts about television star Shivangi Joshi". Pinkvilla. 22 June 2022. Retrieved 18 July 2022.

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

Latest comment: 26 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

⚠

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 non-free 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) 17:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Yorked out

Latest comment: 24 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I've started the book. This'll run and run ... No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@No Swan So Fine Haha. What can I say? We'll see where it goes, but in the meantime I'll try and see if I can expand the article a little bit more. Though I don't expect any detailed reviews until the book is published. Keivan.f^Talk 22:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes yes yes! I've been working on that for ages so thanks for knocking it off. Your royal portraits are on fire as well, incredible work. Also thinking of 'The Royal Family: A Centenary Portrait', Wallis, Duchess of Windsor, Diana in Portofino ... No Swan So Fine (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@No Swan So Fine Thank you. Yes, I just wanted to start the article on Obamas' portraits but by all means feel free to expand it as much as you like. The other portraits that you have in mind are interesting as well, especially The Royal Family: A Centenary Portrait and Wallis, Duchess of Windsor. I look forward to seeing your work on them both and on all the other projects that you have coming down the line. Keivan.f^Talk 15:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York page- "Synth edits"

Latest comment: 19 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I don't agree that the edits I made to the Entitled page constituted WP:SYNTH. In the WP:SYNTH section it states "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." In both the direct 'Kate Mansey' and 'Jacob Rees-Mogg' sources given it shows directly what is being stated about them i.e. that Mansey is a royal news reporter and that Jacob Rees-Mogg is a publically avowed British monarchist. There haven't been any conclusions drawn from the cited pages not manifestly present within them. I haven't combined conclusions from these two sources to make any new conclusions that aren't manifestly present within the given sources i.e. "Person A via the source and Person B via different sources are all people that do unrelated activity."

You've stated on the rollback: "we don't do research into sources by ourselves to label individuals unless it is discussed with the sources that specifically mention or talk about this book". The sources I've given adhere to w.wiki/FVY verifiability. Further, I don't understand what you meant here, specifically what "unless it is discussed with the sources that specifically mention or talk about this book" means. The sources do both discuss the book and are mentioned in the Wiki article because of this. If you could explain more what you meant that would be great, in the meantime I don't agree that the edit/s I made constituted WP:SYNTH.

Thanks, best, flare Flarehayr (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the message. Yes, what I meant was that the context of Jacob Rees-Mogg being a monarchist and him being critical of the book should be discussed within the same source for us to draw the conclusion that he must have dismissed some of the allegations in the book because he was a monarchist. To go after his past comments or affiliations and dig up info about what his political opinions might be a bit of a stretch. By throwing in the word "monarchist", you would essentially 'guide' the reader into believing that he was critical of the book because he's a monarchist; while he might have simply been critical of the book because it's trash (which I personally have not fully read as my copy's still not here so I cannot pass a definitive judgement). Mansey being a royal journalist is also trivia. She's critical of Andrew in her opinion piece so I don't what know we would be conveying to the reader by disclosing her exact position within The Times corporation. There are dozens of journalists covering royal news and events and in fact many of them are critical of the institution at times as they are not hired by Buckingham Palace after all. In a nutshell, being a royal journalist does not mean that the person is a sycophant for the royal family. Keivan.f^Talk 19:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou that makes sense! Delete this topic if you need to.

Best, flare Flarehayr (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pietro Annigoni's portraits of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Latest comment: 17 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Pietro Annigoni's portraits of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Sources are etsy, invaluable, Getty Images, and the second painting comes from a blog? Lacks reliable, indepth sources about the paintings.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Neville Longbottom

Latest comment: 17 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You added a character birthdate to the infobox at Neville Longbottom. It is not sourced or supported by the article. I noticed a few other HP characters with supposed birthdates. Where did these dates come from?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Source added. Keivan.f^Talk 15:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)