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)