User talk:Keivan.f/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

50M2 moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 50M2, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. AussieLegend (✉) 06:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

why change image

The first image was chosen by a different user and it is better and newer (taken in 2019), no need to change it to a less presentable and older image (2017). Lets leave it as it is (Monkelese15 (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I started an RfC on the article's talk page. You're welcome to participate and share your opinion. Keivan.f^Talk 04:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Süperstar '83

Hi Keivan, I know you work on Turkish music articles... do you think you can do anything with Süperstar '83, which has recently been created by another editor? I don't know anything about this subject, so I don't know if the article is notable or not, but I don't want to delete or redirect it if you think it can be improved. At the moment it's really nothing more than a track listing. Richard3120 (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

​ Hi Richard. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. The article itself is a stub right now, but the subject is actually notable. The album was successful in Turkey in the 80's and major newspapers published articles or sections on it. The user who has created the English version is actually the person who has been expanding the article on Turkish Wikipedia. Maybe he's planning to expand it in English as well. You could also ask him about the article directly on his talk page as he has advanced knowledge of English. If he doesn't want to expand it, I'll do it myself. Until then, you probably could redirect it to the artist's page. :) Keivan.f^Talk 06:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. I redirect a lot of album and song articles that are obviously non-notable, but I try and use some common sense... the singer's article is detailed and shows she's been making music for 40 years or more, and you don't get to do that without having one or two successful records. So in this case the lack of detail was more likely to be due to lack of access to resources (especially as sources from the early 1980s aren't likely to be online), and not because of lack of notability. But I thought I'd better confirm it with someone who knows better than me. ;-) I'll talk to the editor and see what his/her reply is. Richard3120 (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Index of articles related to the Ottoman Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Suleiman I (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Reynmen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Reynmen 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/Reynmen 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. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 07:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Barış Özcan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barış Özcan 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/Barış Özcan 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. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 07:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Meghan title

"It's been "officially" announced that she'll keep her title even after she and her husband step back" - where, please? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

​ Hi. Details of the agreement have been published on the Royal Family's official website and on their own website. Here's the link to the article that explains everything in detail on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's website. On the eighth paragraph, it is stated:

As agreed and set out in January, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will retain their “HRH” prefix, thereby formally remaining known as His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex and Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will no longer 'actively' use their HRH titles as they will no longer be working members of the family as of Spring 2020.

Keivan.f^Talk 23:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Covid-19 Turkey Map

Dear Keivan,

Could you please share the source of map of provinces with confirmed or suspected coronavirus cases with us?

Thanks and regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.191.40.130 (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. The person who has been updating that file is User:Boracasli. You can ask him/her about the references on his/her talk page on the Wikimedia Commons. If you think something is wrong with the information provided, you can always discuss it on the article’s talk page. Cheers! Keivan.f^Talk 05:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Recoveries number

Sir, regarding to this edit (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/947374554?diffmode=source); those recoveries are announced on 25th of March for the previous day; 24th. No update for 25 March from Twitter page. Joseph (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Joseph. I reverted it back to the previous version. Have a wonderful day. Keivan.f^Talk 18:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Apayrı, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cassette (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Overlinking

Hi, thanks for your contributions. Please note that we don't normally link common terms (e.g. "singer"), or dates or years. Tony (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tony1: Hi. Actually, I avoid doing that as much as I can. I’d be glad if you tell me where exactly I linked a common term to a Wiki page. It was probably a mistake. Keivan.f^Talk 19:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, sorry—it may have been my misreading of the page history. My best to you. Tony (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ezhel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Çankaya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Table of covid cases in Turkey by province

Hi, the table is very much out of date since Turkish government does not release data by province. You have added Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Turkey medical cases by province back, what is your motivation to keep it?  Caner Güçlü ^talk 21:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Caner Güçlü: Hey Caner. I didn’t notice that the template was out of date. You’re absolutely right. We can remove it for now and then add it back once/if new information is available. Keivan.f^Talk 21:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales: Lede sentence

Hi Keivan.f, you are invited to join a discussion regarding the lede sentence of the article Diana, Princess of Wales, on the talk page (here). Thank you, cookie monster (2020) 755 03:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Ways to improve Ömer Döngeloğlu

Hello, Keivan.f,

Thank you for creating Ömer Döngeloğlu.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please try to add some English sources in the article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Path slopu}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

PATH SLOPU 07:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Sarah, Duchess of York signature.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sarah, Duchess of York signature.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. cookie monster (2020) 755 03:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Huge changes

Re: your huge changes here, I assume you'd like someone to add sources to all those listed from their own articles? If not, what is your goal there? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: First of all, having a huge list in the middle of the article is totally pointless. Using proses is always preferred. Not to mention that many of the items included in the list sounded bizarre, such as Silvia marrying him and becoming queen consort. This has nothing to do with Carl Gustaf, she became queen because law demanded it. And, granting titles to children and grandkids is what all monarchs around the world do. So, unless there’s something noteworthy about it, such as his uncle’s case or him removing his grandkids’ HRH prefix, there’s no point in creating such a list. Keivan.f^Talk 16:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Titles in other monarchies are government sanctioned, officially, in one documented way or another. The Swedish government witnesses, but does not officially sanction or grant any of those titles. This king does that all by himself. You know as well as I do (?) that it is possible to be the wife of a king without being king. When C16G granted the title of queen and the style of Majesty to his wife it was in stark contrast to what he did to his sister two years before. Only he had the power to do these things. His choices were usually quite remarkable, even unique, and the continuity of that list shows it. The list was a real good, fair, comprehensive account of all his exclusive activities with titles, even creating a few new duchies that never existed before, and was in the article stably, for quite some time. I'm going to put in back, and if you don't like it, use the talk page before editing, like we all do. Please don't just tear into stable articles and make big changes like that without discussion first. I know you mean well, but there you went too far, I think. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

​ We are all contributors here and sometimes we need to be bold. In any case, if you feel that the list is very important from a legal point of view, you can absolutely restore its content, but as I said the section would look better if its content were written as a prose, rather than a huge list. A summary of these activities with sufficient examples is always preferred. Keivan.f^Talk 22:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hamed Solhipour

سلام وقت بخیر ببخشید میشه راهنماییم کنید که چطور میشه یه پیش نویس به مقاله تبدیل بشه من مقاله حامدصلحی‌پور رو ایجاد کردم اما به حالت پیش نویس باقی مونده https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Seyed_Hamed_Solhipouravanji Mahsa27 (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mahsa27: درود. نگاهی اجمالی به پیش‌نویس انداختم و تغییراتی جزئی اعمال کردم. مقاله از نظر نوشتار مشکل خاصی ندارد فقط منبع‌دهی بسیار ضعیف است چون اصلا از پانویس استفاده نکرده‌اید و مشخص نیست که منابع مذکور در پایان مقاله دقیقا مربوط به کدام جمله یا قسمت هستند. نکته دیگر این که پیش‌نویس را یکی از مدیران می‌تواند تبدیل به مقاله کند، فقط با توجه به اشکالاتی که ذکر کردم احتمالا درخواستتان رد می‌شود و از شما می‌خواهند که دوباره روی صفحه کار کنید. باز هم سوالی داشتید در خدمت هستم Keivan.f^Talk 23:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

سلام متشکرم من دقیقا همون متنی که توی مقاله‌ی فارسی نوشتم ترجمه کردم و اینجا اوردم و به طبع منابع هم همون‌ها هستن. من میتوتم همون پانویس‌های مقاله‌ی فارسی رو اینجا استفاده کنم یا مقاله‌ی انگلیسی باید منابع انگلیسی داشته باشه؟ سپاس فراوان Mahsa27 (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mahsa27: درود. همین الآن هم یک سری منبع به زبان انگلیسی در انتهای مقاله هست. اگر بتوانید از همان‌ها برای ایجاد پانویس استفاده کنید که چه بهتر. اگر نه آزاد هستید که از منابع فارسی هم استفاده کنید، فقط حواستان باشد که منابع معتبری باشند. به عنوان مثال وبسایت شخصی منبع معتبر به حساب نمی‌آید. Keivan.f^Talk 07:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

خیلی ممنون Mahsa27 (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

پانویس رو اصلاح کردم متشکرم از راهنماییتون اما تا جایی که من متوجه شدم چون من کمتر از ۱۰۰تا ویرایش انجام دادم نمیتونم خودم برای تبدیل پیش‌نویس به مقاله درخواست بدم

امکانش هست شما لطف کنید و درخواست بدید؟ Mahsa27 (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mahsa27: من خودم توانستم انجامش دهم. صفحه از فضای پیش‌نویس خارج شد. اگر خواستید همچنان می‌توانید به ویرایش‌هایتان برای بهبود مقاله ادامه بدهید. Keivan.f^Talk 22:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

سپاسگزارم Mahsa27 (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Enes Batur for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Enes Batur 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/Enes Batur 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. Guy (help!) 07:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Duchess of Sussex (draft)

What do you think of this draft User:CookieMonster755/Duchess of Sussex  ? cookie monster (2020) 755 16:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@CookieMonster755: Hi. It actually looks good, but I'm glad that you have added sections about the history of the title and the other titles bestowed upon its holder. If you fill them up with enough information and reliable sources, you should definitely be able to move it to the main space. I'll try to help as well as soon as I find some free time. Keivan.f^Talk 02:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Help To Create an Article For Tina Akhondtabar

Salam Keivan Aziz. Man ye maghale dar rabete ba Tina Akhondtabar neveshtam va sabt kardam ama moteasefane reject shode. Mikhastam az shoma baraye sabte in maghale komak begiram. Reference haye ke gharar daram site haye motabar Farsi zaban hastan ama admin haye dg reject mikonan!! Dar maghale khanom Elnaz Shakerdoost ham moshabeh hamin maghaleha vojod dasht ama baraye maghale Tina Akhondtabar ghabol nashod. Mamnon misham dar sabtesh komak konid. Ba arezoye movafaghiat baraye shoma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tina_Akhondtabar). Sogand Kamranii (talk) 06:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sogand Kamranii: درود. من به مقاله یک نگاه اجمالی انداختم. از لحاظ ساختار و اسلوب مشکلی ندارد، فقط همانطور که مدیران اشاره کردند، منبع‌دهی در پیش‌نویس مورد نظر ضعیف است. منابع ممکن است معتبر باشند، ولی از منابع درون‌خطی استفاده نشده. در کل فقط دو منبع درون‌خطی در متن مقاله آمده. اگر بتوانید از فهرست منابعی که در انتهای مقاله هست در متن صفحه استفاده کرده و کمی هم با نوشتن در رابطه با فعالیت‌ها و حرفه‌ی این شخص آن را گشترش دهید می‌توانید به ثبتش برسانید. پس از گسترش مقاله من هم می‌توانم نگاهی به ساختار و تنظیماتش بیاندازم. با آرزوی سلامتی. Keivan.f^Talk 06:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

New York City resident?

Hi, do you live in New York City? I see your time zone is UTC−04:00. Thanks, cookie monster (2020) 755 03:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

​Hi. Not in NYC, but in DC. As you may already know they have the same timezone. Keivan.f^Talk 05:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

That is nice I would love to be in DC because of the TV show Scandal. cookie monster (2020) 755 16:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I have heard of that show but never had the opportunity to watch it :( Keivan.f^Talk 22:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a good show. I live in Los Angeles County, California :D cookie monster (2020) 755 16:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, great. I visited there several times when I was a California resident. :) Keivan.f^Talk 04:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Harald Kloser

You added that Harald Kloser has 2 children, but you didn't use a reliable source. Why? Do you know Harald Kloser? In fact, I don't think the article had any reliable sources when I came to it.[1] I doubt soundtrack.net is WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

​ In an article published by Bild der Frau (1) it is mentioned that Désirée Nosbusch has two children, born during her marriage to Kloser. Keivan.f^Talk 07:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you please add the WP:RS to the article. The article is rather sparse on WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I’ll see what I can do once I have some free time. Keivan.f^Talk 07:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I will refer to this discussion on the talk page so editors can find the source. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Keivan.f

Thank you for creating 2012 Istanbul suicide bombing.

User:Dibbydib, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for your article you made to Wikipedia! I've reviewed both the article and its talk page and it looks good to me, therefore I've marked the article as reviewed. This means that I've given it the green light, and that it is an acceptable article to Wikipedia. You did good! dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 06:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Dibbydib}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Translating

Hi, when you translate from a foreign language wiki, such as at Belkıs Özener, you need to give attribution:

• You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary: Content in this edit is translated from the existing Turkish Wikipedia article at tr:Belkıs Özener; see its history for attribution.
• You should also add the template {{Translated|tr|Belkıs Özener}} to the talk page.
• For more guidance, see Wikipedia:Translation. --John B123 (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

​ Hi. Thanks for the reminder. I sometimes forget to include an edit summary indicating that the article has been translated from another language. I'll promise to be more careful next time. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 23:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page

Hi, can you improve this page? Sansar Salvo translated from Turkish wikipedia Baran Ahmet (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

​ Hi. I did a little bit of structural improvement here and there, but in order to expand the text I need to go over some online sources. I'll try to do it in the upcoming days. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 06:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Your recent editing history at Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. RexxS (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: No such thing is happening. I advise you to take a look at the revision history more carefully next time, before leaving such a message. Keivan.f^Talk 16:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I advise you to self-revert. The source you used is not acceptable to support content in Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

You cannot use unreliable sources for content in Wikipedia, and you cannot use non-WP:MEDRS sources for biomedical claims. The COVID-19 articles are under community sanctions and you should take time to familiarise yourself with the standards of behaviour expected from editors. --RexxS (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: The sources were taken from the data chart, yet as the other user mentioned, they seem to be unreliable and that's why I'm changing them now. Besides, these are not only biomedical claims. The numbers are announced by the government and regularly reported in the news. So instead of constantly warning me, maybe you should track down the IP who has added such sources to the data chart in the first place, forcing me to spend the past hour changing all of them with more reliable references. Keivan.f^Talk 16:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's be clear. In these 26 edits you inserted tr.sputniknews.com sources 24 times. Not an IP, you. You triggered the edit filter "use of deprecated (unreliable) sources" 10 times. If you'd been as careful at examining the revision history as you suggest I should have been, you would have noticed that days ago. After David Gerard removed the 20 June with a clear indication of the problem, you continued to add the same source for 21 June. If you're going to fix the problems as you have now done for 21 June, then I'd be grateful. --RexxS (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: Please take a look at Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Turkey medical cases. The sources were taken from there. I was simply copying the sources and adding them to the article on the timeline. It wasn't until today when I received the second warning that I checked the template's history and realized an IP has been adding them to the data chart this whole time. As you can see in the template's history, it's me who's changing those references now. Keivan.f^Talk 16:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: Per your request I replaced all the references on the article on timeline as well as the ones on the medical chart data. It also seems that the IP who was adding those references on the chart has noticed what's going on because he is now using other sources instead of Sputnik, but perhaps you should give him a warning as well. Keivan.f^Talk 17:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that's much appreciated. I've taken your advice and left a request at User talk:85.110.206.124. --RexxS (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Articles For Deletion

Hi, i have created a deletion page for Fatih Doğan can you add your comment? Baran Ahmet (talk) 07:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Keivan.f^Talk 08:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Article of Khontkar

Hi, can you improve Khontkar? Baran Ahmet (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I did some general improvements in terms of structure and added a discography section. Keivan.f^Talk 08:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Turkish Language Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Çankaya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Semin Öztürk Şener

Hi! I see that you moved father's name from "parents" to "relatives" in Semin Öztürk Şener article's infobox. Just to know more, I kindly ask the reason. Thanks. CeeGee 09:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@CeeGee: Hi. If you look carefully at the page’s revision history you’ll realize that the name was already under the “Relatives” parameter, and I attempted to change it by adding the “Parents” parameter. However, “Infobox aviator” doesn’t allow for the “Parents” parameter to be used. Thus the only remaining option would be having her father’s name under “Relatives”. Keivan.f^Talk 16:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your explanation. I was not aware of that. CeeGee 04:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Attempted assassination of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kocaeli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi

I made a page Ezgi Eyüboğlu, you can improve it, and you can fix my mistakes. Tahaaleem (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tahaaleem. I did some minor edits and adjustments, but overall you have done a good job :) Cheers! Keivan.f^Talk 19:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation. Tahaaleem (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Notable sources

Hi, Are those sources enough for notability?

www.teknofark.com www.haberplanet.com Baran Ahmet (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Baran Ahmet: Hi. Nope, they don't satisfy the needs outlined in the notability guidelines. You either need books written by credible authors, highly publicized newspapers, or reliable news agencies as a source for creating an article. Those websites that you mentioned fall under none of these categories. Keivan.f^Talk 19:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your comment. Baran Ahmet (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi Keivan.f. I have an article in my sandbox here. Can you please check if I have made any mistakes please? Thank you in advance :)--Nanahuatl (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: Hi. Sure! I'll take a look at it and see if it needs any additional changes. Keivan.f^Talk 21:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks :) Feel free to make edits :)--Nanahuatl (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

​ Alright, I did some minor changes, but overall it is perfectly written. :) The only thing that I refrained from doing was removing her parents and brother's names from the infobox. I'm not sure whether they are notable or not, but if they don't meet the notability criteria, their names have to be removed per Infobox person's instructions. As a side note, to make things a little bit easier, I made the Turkish draft of Anıtkabir available on one of my sandbox pages. I haven't still had the chance to get to the library and find the book that you had mentioned, but until then we can work on the translation process step by step, so feel free to do any changes to that page. I'll probably start working on it myself after I'm done with my list of articles for Turkish actors. :) Keivan.f^Talk 22:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

According to the Dutch Wikipedia, they are notable :D For Anıtkabir, thanks for the reminder. I'd say Turkish users such as @Khutuck: and/or @Dr. Coal: may also help.--Nanahuatl (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

​ I linked them to the Dutch Wikipedia then. :) Keivan.f^Talk 22:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wedding of Princess Beatrice and Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diamante (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Eser Yenenler for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eser Yenenler 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/Eser Yenenler (2nd 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. ~ Amkgp 💬 05:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Article

I recently made an article Miray Akay, I think I may and added sufficient and extraordinary information, maybe you can check it and correct because you have more experience then me in Turkish TV industry. Tahaaleem (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tahaaleem: Hi. You have done a great job, as always. There were some minor changes that I made to the structure of the article, and one recent role was missing from the filmography section, which I added it myself. Well done and keep it up. :) Keivan.f^Talk 17:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, just wanted to know how to make a talk page?, so I can easily add them, whenever establishing a new article Tahaaleem (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

​ Try reading Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to familiarize yourself with how these pages are created and how they work. Once you start making these talk pages, definitely add the WikiProject Biography tab if the article is about a person. If a Wikiproject exists for their country, you can add that as well. For women there's also WikiProject Women that you can add to the talk page of their articles. There are several pages and numerous examples that you can look at to see how the talk pages are made. If you have any further questions, feel free to submit a message. Keivan.f^Talk 23:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate your effort. Tahaaleem (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to ask, I am planning to make a article on Selen Özturk, but she had worked in 30+ projects, is it necessary to add all, in the career section? Tahaaleem (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tahaaleem: Hi. No, you can add only the important ones in that section, but instead include the full credits in the filmography / theatre sections. Keivan.f^Talk 19:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to say to share your thoughts on it, so article can be deleted, here is the link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahra Şaş Tahaaleem (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

It’s funny how the word “دماغ” means Brain in both Urdu and Arabic, but in Persian it’s means Nose. Tahaaleem (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tahaaleem: I don't know how you found out about that but yes. Damagh means nose in Persian, but we also have another word for nose: bini (بینی). Keivan.f^Talk 17:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to ask, how do you move or rename a page? Tahaaleem (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tahaaleem: Hi. I wasn't able to respond to your message promptly. Read Wikipedia:Moving a page. It contains all of the information that you need. Keivan.f^Talk 16:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

AfD

Hi! Can you take a look at this AfD please? It has minimal participation and I thought you might want to contribute since its about Turkey. Teşekkürler. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 09:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Styyx: Sure. Let me see what I can find about the subject on the web and then I'll leave a comment. Keivan.f^Talk 01:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

IR net censorship

سلام. امیدوارم حالتان خوب باشد. در مقاله زیر که در سانسو ر_اینتر نت در جهان است بخشی با نام Shutdowns به کشور هایی که به قطع کردن اینتر نت دست زده اند پرداخته است. نام مقاله: Internet Censorship

در رابطه با قطع_اینتر نت در ایران فقط دو یا سه خط نوشته شده است.... برای بازتاب جهانی چند خط در این باره بنویسید:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_censorship#Internet_shutdowns

روز خوبی داشته باشید Samira0808 (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Samira0808: درود. مقاله مذکور در مورد سانسور اینترنت در نقاط مختلف جهان است به همین علت با جزئیات روی مسئله سانسور در یک کشور خاص نمی‌توان متمرکز شد. در مورد اکثر کشورها من جمله ایران مقالات جداگانه موجود هست که سانسور در کشور مذکور را با جزئیات توضیح می‌دهد.

ببینید: Censorship in Iran. Keivan.f^Talk 22:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Nurettin Sönmez for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nurettin Sönmez 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/Nurettin Sönmez 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.   // Timothy :: talk  20:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Cihangir

Dear Keivan.f! Can you make an article about Cihangir Gaffari in English? Thank you! --217.66.156.2 (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. At the moment I have a lot of things on hand which need to be translated, etc. Once I finish those, I'll create an article on Cihangir Gaffari as well. Keivan.f^Talk 23:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:50M2

Hello, Keivan.f. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "50M2".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Dag

Dear Keivan.f! Can you complete article The Mountain (2012 film)? Thank you! --178.71.162.107 (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I'll see what I can do, but it's not a subject that I'm fully familiar with. If you are capable of expanding the article yourself, don't hesitate and do it. :) Keivan.f^Talk 22:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

A question

How did you created your page: Keivan.f/works, I want to create a page, articles Made by me, how can I make it. Tahaaleem (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tahaaleem: All of the users can have sandboxes of their own. I have a few of them and you can start by creating one for yourself. Simply create User:Tahaaleem/sandbox and add {{User sandbox}} at the top of it. Keivan.f^Talk 15:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Tahaaleem (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: I am planning to make a article on Özge Yağız, but it was deleted in June 2020, should I create it again? Tahaaleem (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tahaaleem: I don't recommend it. It's probably too early, considering the fact that she has only appeared in 3 TV productions in total. Keivan.f^Talk 14:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Keivan.f, Hey, I wanted to ask on this page Şehzade Mehmed Burhaneddin, he died in New York, so we should use the MDY format or DMY on his death date? Tahaaleem (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tahaaleem: Hey. The whole article needs to be consistent in terms of formatting. We cannot use DMY in one place and MDY in another. Since the subject himself was Turkish, I suggest using DMY. The place of death doesn’t necessarily matter in this case. Keivan.f^Talk 21:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Article getting declined, please help

Hello, I need help. I am trying to create this article for this Turkish rapper, but they keep declining it. Can you help? Thanks.

Infobox Person

From the template documentation: "Names of parents; include only if they are independently notable or particularly relevant." DonIago (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Doniago: “or particularly relevant.” His father has been married 3 times, so for the sake of disambiguation and saving readers some time it’s reasonable to include his mother’s name as well. I may take the issue to the talk page. Keivan.f^Talk 21:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm entirely amenable to that option. DonIago (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Değişiklik

Merhaba Tuğçe kandemir Türkçe maddesini yazan benim madde de ciddi değişiklikler yaptım ingilizce sürümünü siz yazmışsın isterseniz bilgileri güncelleyin Walter Mustafa (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Mustafa: Merhabalar. Mesajiniz için teşekkür ederim. İlk fırsatta makalenin üzerinde çalışacağım. Keivan.f^Talk 02:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you help on Turkish rapper singer stub please?

Hello, I have been working on this article can you please tell me I think i was able to find reliable secondary sources. I don't understand what is the problem. Please help I am new to this. Bobby lee swagger (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

List of consorts of the Ottoman sultans

Hello. I wanted to ask that back in 2013 I created the article List of consorts of the Ottoman sultans. There are no references on it. I'm unable to do it myself. Can I place it under Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Articles or not. Any suggestions. Thank you. Retrieverlove (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Retrieverlove: Hi. I don't know if that project can really help with this list's situation as its members haven't been active that much. The list itself has the potential for expansion and is definitely notable, so I wouldn't suggest deleting it either. A user with enough interest in Ottoman history like you can actually work on it. Try taking help from members involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottoman Empire and Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries. You may find additional users who have the ability to collaborate with you on the expansion of this list. It's an interesting topic after all. Keivan.f^Talk 16:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete articles

Hi. Can you delete the articles Eftandise Hatun, Şemsiruhsar Hatun, and Afife Kadın. Retrieverlove (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Retrieverlove: Hi. Technically we can get rid of them through the deletion process but you need to have a valid reason. What makes you believe that they need to be deleted? Keivan.f^Talk 03:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: Well for Eftandise we only know her parentage, which is not sufficient for an article. For Şemsiruhsar Hatun, we know that she was mother of a daughter. And for Afife Kadın, there are much confusions whether she was the same woman mentioned by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu in her letters as it proposed but not proven yet. Retrieverlove (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Retrieverlove: All right. I'll put them up for a deletion discussion and the community can then decide whether they should be deleted or not. Don't forget to participate. Keivan.f^Talk 01:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: OK. Thanks. Retrieverlove (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! Mottshmikes (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Countesses

What's the idea with all these page moves away from the usual style? See Wikipedia:NCPEER. This is not unecessary disam, in case that's what you think. I've reverted one; is there any reason not to do the rest? Ideally you should do that. Actually what you moved to Elizabeth Trussell, & I reverted should use her married name of de Vere anyway. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Well, you said it yourself. That is not the usual style. The usual style would be either their maiden name alone, or their married name combined with their title, not a weird mix of the two things. In case of Elizabeth Trussell, the page was at Elizabeth de Vere, Countess of Oxford until it was moved to its current name in 2016 without a discussion. One could argue that Elizabeth Trussell is the common name, and in that case there's no need to add her noble title up after her maiden name, because she only earned it through marriage not by birth right. Keivan.f^Talk 03:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not the issue - there are 2 x Elizabeth de Vere, Countess of Oxford, if you look at the de Vere category! Elizabeth Trentham, Countess of Oxford is the other. Hence using the maiden name is correct, & needed for disam. But you always add the title. "Common names" don't exist for such people. Elizabeth de Vere, Countess of Oxford needs a disam page. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: We cannot say that common name doesn't exist for them through. One of the examples that I can think of right now is Lady Katherine Grey, who also happened to be a countess. In any case, I moved most of those pages to include their married surnames, and for those that were using their maiden names extensively I omitted the titles, assuming that the maiden name is the common form. I actually looked some of them up on Google. In the case of the two Elizabeth's, there's another way that can be used for disam if there married names are to be used. Elizabeth Somerset, Countess of Worcester (wife of the 2nd Earl) and Elizabeth Somerset, Countess of Worcester (wife of the 4th Earl) are two examples. Keivan.f^Talk 03:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Obviously that is far worse! Is there any precedent for that? I'm afraid you seem to be blundering around making it up as you go along. I notice that at Margery Golding you reverted your own move of 6 months ago. Is that because she married again? You should give explanations for these moves in the box provided. Lady Katherine Grey is a lousy example, as her first marriage was quickly annulled and her second marriage was secret & got her into big trouble. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: My initial move on Margery Golding had to be reverted because it was in contrast with Wikipedia:NCPEER, something that unfortunately I hadn't realized a few months ago. And what matters I guess, is what the sources say. Another example would be Mary Dudley, who was a noblewoman too; daughter of a duke actually. Her married name was Mary Sidney, yet the page is titled after her maiden name because that's what the common name is. Oh, and let's not forget Lady Jane Grey, the Nine Days' Queen, who was titled Lady Jane Dudley after marriage, but obviously the latter is not her common name. The point is, using maiden names for married noble women has precedent. Keivan.f^Talk 03:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm extremely dubious about that - obviously when she married she went from being Mary Dudley to being Mary, Countess of Pembroke or just "the Countess of Pembroke". The latter two are useless for disam of course but will easily be the actual common name in the great majority of such cases. Noblewomen only recently got the choice of continuing to use their maiden name professionally etc, like Elizabeth Thompson - perhaps the first, born 1846. But actually she is probably better known as "Lady Butler", or was till feminism, and the naming is partly to avoid disam with all the other Lady Butlers. And she was famous before she married. Wikipedia:NCPEER is rightly clear that the (noble) title should usually be included in the article title. It's pointless citing Lady Jane Grey to justify Margery Golding or Elizabeth Trussell. Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Wikipedia:NCPEER instructs users to include titles after names, but not to make a mix out of the individual's maiden and married names. In the case of Elizabeth, a disam is required, so that could be justifiable, but I cannot say the same thing about Margery Golding. If it were to include the title, then the surname would need to change as well. And honestly I'm not against using their married surnames, especially for the ones that were born before the rise of feminism. It's just that the whole thing is very inconsistent and messed up, so I tried my best to keep the balance between what would be the appropriate form of address as well as the common name. Yet, if you believe that the surname would not make that much of a difference, then I guess we can move them using the format "'Name' 'Married Surname', Countess of 'X'". After all, a similar format has been used for the pages on duchesses and they are in fact very consistent, unlike the articles we have about countesses. Keivan.f^Talk 03:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NCPEER doesn't actually say not to, & it seems the best solution to me. Very likely these issues - 2 Elizabeth de Vere, Countess of Oxfords and 2 marriages with different titles - have come up before, although they don't seem mentioned in the MOS. At this point we should perhaps ask at the nobs project, with a link to this, in case there has been a consensus. If not, we could try to get one, & add to the policy. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Well, I guess it's better to seek clarification and ask for consensus. Feel free to start a discussion though. Unfortunately I have a lot to study for my upcoming exams, but I'll try to participate as much as I can. :) Keivan.f^Talk 04:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, not today though - I'll ping you when I do. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi, hope you are fine, I had created the article Alina Boz in June, however as you know she was born in Russia, so I am here to ask that do we need add her Russian name in the article? Thank you. Tahaaleem ^Talk 12:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

​ Hi. Hope you have had a good week so far. Regarding your question, no, I don't think we need to do that. As an example, we have numerous American people who were born outside the US or had non-American parents but we identify them as American, and thus the spelling of their name in the country that they were born in is not included. Victoria Fyodorova is an example that I can think of. Also, Alina Boz doesn't appear to have strong ties to Russia despite being half Russian. For instance, she hasn't appeared in any Russian productions. Alternatively, you can just change the phrase "Turkish actress" to "Turkish-Russian actress" in the first sentence to emphasize on her Russian ancestry, just like Meryem Uzerli and Selma Ergeç, who are labeled as "Turkish-German" because their mothers are German women. Keivan.f^Talk 06:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Tahaaleem ^Talk— is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2020 and tomorrow will be 2021. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2021. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Tahaaleem ^Talk 13:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tahaaleem: Happy New Year to you too. Hope all the best for you in the coming year. Keivan.f^Talk 07:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks :). Tahaaleem ^Talk 08:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Mikail

Hi, I've seen that you moved Mikail of Kınık tribe to Mikail (son of Seljuk) without any discussion. Well that's possible. But what is your rationale? Cheers and happy new year. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nedim Ardoğa: Hi and happy new year. I moved the page because no previous discussion exsited and thus it was a noncontroversial move. Based on the naming rules and per WP:TITLECON, that title was not appropriate. Individuals, especially those born to royalty and nobility, are sorted by their titles or disambiguated using their parents or spouses' names. Examples include Hatice Sultan (daughter of Selim I) (instead of Hatice of the Ottoman dynasty) and Rusudan (daughter of Demetrius I of Georgia) (instead of Rusudan of the Bagrationi dynasty). Also, Mikail ibn Seljuk would have been inappropriate as well, since that's technically an Arabic term. Keivan.f^Talk 18:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

About article

Hi, I am planning to make a article on Kübra Süzgün, but she is a child actress and is only 11 years old, but she was appeared in like five TV series and 4 movies, do you think it would be applicable to make a article on her, although she is still a child actress? Thank you. Tahaaleem ^Talk 09:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tahaaleem: Hi. As long as you can find reliable sources it's fine. An example that I can think of is Beren Gökyıldız, the article for whom was created by me in January 2019. Keivan.f^Talk 10:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I will find adequate sources and create the article. Thank you. Tahaaleem ^Talk 10:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Re-open of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ozan Boz (2nd nomination)

Hello Keivan.f, just wanted to reach out and kindly ask you to review your vote. Discussion is re-opened [[2]], and I’ve added a few objections to the Nominator’s arguments. Please consider whether the article satisfies the guideline WP:MUSICBIO as it was written. Thanks. Neckhumbucker (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neckhumbucker (talk • contribs) 20:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Just saw an article you created for a Turkish TV actress. I wasn't aware Turkish sources could be referenced in English Wiki. Maybe you could help locate reliable Turkish newspaper clippings for the person and band to improve the article. Thank you. Neckhumbucker (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Neckhumbucker: Hi. Yes, technically you can use sources from all languages as long as they are reliable. However, I haven't been able to find any reliable sources about this individual on Turkish websites and newspapers (and neither on English counterparts to be honest). As a result, I'm afraid that my vote is not going to change. Keivan.f^Talk 04:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Keivan can you help on getting my article approved?

Would you please review my article and possibly approve it I was able to find more info about the artist. -- Bobby lee swagger (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Sefirin Kızı English

Merhaba siz Sefirin Kızı’nın İngilizce dilindeki sayfasını koruma altina alabilirmisiniz? Çünkü ayrim Uraz’ın laftan anlamaz fanlari kendi bildiklerini yapib Nare’yı Işıklı diye yazib Uraz’ıda başrol yaziyorlar. Farangiz Jumaniyozova (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, can you protect the English page of The Ambassador's Daughter? Because the fans of Uraz Kaygılaroğlu do what they know and write Nare Çelebe as her surname Işıkıklı and write Uraz as the leading role. I hope you don't keep this careless. Please protect the page🙏🙏🙏 Farangiz Jumaniyozova (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Farangiz Jumaniyozova: Merhabalar. Mesajinizi gördüm fakat yanıt vermek için fırsatım olmadı, o yüzden kusura bakmayın. Neyse, sayfayı ben koruma altına alamam çünkü öyle bir yetkim yoktur. Ama hizmetlilerden rica ettim ve şimdi onların yanıtını bekliyorum. Bir cevap gelince sizinle paylaşacağım. İyi çalışmalar. Keivan.f^Talk 23:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Cevap verdiğiniz için teşekkürler🙏 Umarım koruma altina alirlar, gördüğünüz gibi Uraz Kayğılaroğlu’nun fanlari kendi istediklerini yazıp değistiriyorlar. Acaba türk dilindeki sayfasi ilede ilgilene bilirmisiniz yine Nare Işıklı diye yazmişlar. Farangiz Jumaniyozova (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Farangiz Jumaniyozova: Tekrar merhaba. Sayfa bir haftalık süreliğine koruma altına alındı. Sanırım bundan sonra sorun yaşanmayacaktır. Keivan.f^Talk 05:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

İlgilendiniz için teşekkür ederim. 1 haftadan fazla koruma altina almanın imkani varmi , mesala 1 ay filan Farangiz Jumaniyozova (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Farangiz Jumaniyozova: Genelde bir haftayla başlar. Eğer bir haftadan sonra vandalizmler devam ederse, o zaman süreyi uzatırlar. Keivan.f^Talk 16:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited First Lady of Myanmar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Myint Swe.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hii Keivan.f

Hi I think he is doing wrong about Deniz UNAY article Because sea Ünay with his writings and his work to national newspapers and news agencies in Turkey with Turkish English article also took place broadly prepared. Then I want to ask When you are really reviewing, do you say exactly what other editors said. Are you taking time? see About Deniz Unay in Google News, there are nearly 2000 results in 15 languages, there are also TV programs she has attended, can be accessed from youtube and google images, again, the conferences she gave are many studies she has done with education. Now what I want from you and other editors is fairer and more detailed a review

My request from you Please help with this article If the subject of this article had not deserved Wikipedia, it would not have been discussed for 4.5 months. Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emremer (talk • contribs) 09:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Translation Barnstar
		For translating countless articles from Turkish to English :) ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 19:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Styyx: Thank you so much :) Keivan.f^Talk 21:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex

Just a quick one, you appear to be changing articles regarding the Duke's honorary military appointments to say that he gave them up today. In fact, if you read the article that you have been using as a citation, or any other article on the matter, you would realise that they state the Duke "will" give up his titles- implying that he hasn't yet. Thanks – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 00:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@SmartyPants22: I don't really think that by "will" they mean days or months from now. The Queen has issued a written statement. Wouldn't that be enough for stripping him of his honorary military titles or is there a process for it? Because his patronage of several organizations ended today and the charities confirmed it through their social media, so the same might be true for the military appointments. Keivan.f^Talk 00:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: As far as I am aware: no. I understand your confusion, as I did originally make the same edits as you, but later reverted them. As no official confirmation or reliable sources have been published yet, we should just wait it out- if I do turn out to be wrong, we can always retrospectively add today as the end date. It's really a case of the sources not supporting the end date being the 19th of February. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 00:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@SmartyPants22: You're right. Anyway, I added a note to the top of that section, which says that the appointments will be relinquished. That should be enough for now. Keivan.f^Talk 00:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: Many thanks, I hope you have a good night! – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 00:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@SmartyPants22: Thanks. Same to you :) Keivan.f^Talk 01:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Mohammed bin Nayef and Muqrin Bin Abdulaziz

You have moved this page without Al Saud, but the pages on these persons from this family were decided to contain the family name in an old discussion. So, please restore with Al Saud. The same is also required for the page, Muqrin Bin Abdulaziz. Thanks, --Egeymi (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Egeymi: Hi, and thanks for your message. Firstly, I haven't moved the page on Muqrin, so I cannot really do anything about that. As with Mohammed, I simply reverted an undiscussed move and restored the previous stable title. If you believe Al Saud should be included as the family name for the former crown princes then a move discussion would be necessary, because I'm pretty sure it's going to be a controversial move. All the best. Keivan.f^Talk 09:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced content

You're being disruptive. Stop please. DrKay (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@DrKay: Am I being disruptive? I can actually say the same thing about you. The source clearly says: "Unless The Prince of Wales chooses to alter the present decisions when he becomes king, he will continue to be of the House of Windsor and his grandchildren will use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor." That's a solid statement there. What more could you possibly be asking for? A scan of William's passport? Keivan.f^Talk 18:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not the issue, as you well know as I have explained it repeatedly. DrKay (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@DrKay: I put it up for discussion anyway, because I'm seeing inconsistency between the articles now, with some listing only the given names, some listing the full names, and some listing neither of those. This should be justified by argument and hopefully we will get a consensus soon. Keivan.f^Talk 19:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Naming royals

I’m glad someone is opening talks now because I tried did but didn’t really come good. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography states surname issue. But also there is a full name issue. Other European royals like Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark or Guillaume, Hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg lists just names as surnames. I tried that with Princess Charlotte of Cambridge. Her names announced as Charlotte Elizabeth Diana. (Palace and BBC references) But no newspaper called that a “full name” so I got an alert about veritification. Prince George of Cambridge didn’t get one because luckly BBC called his “full name”. Also their birth certificates are public documents and open to everyone. But it list all their titles so there is a difference with other royal biographies such as Swedish Eoyal Family. Please somebody help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berfu (talk • contribs) 18:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Berfu: Hi. So just stop modifying the infoboxes because you might be accused of edit warring. I also removed disputed content, and I'm about to open a discussion. I'll tag you once it's up. Keivan.f^Talk 18:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I also want to ask you something. One of my edits for Princess Charlotte of Cambridge (I added direct qoute from source) edited because “source written years before she was born therefore cannot mention her at any point.” But that is not true because letters patents are legal documents in UK and they are kind of law actually. House of Windsor#Descendants of Elizabeth II shows how royal proclamation is done. Princess Charlotte’s title or style can be decided years ago from her birth like how we know If queen give birth to a child now, child will be Princess. I don’t know what is wrong with what I wrote. Berfu (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Berfu: So what the other user meant was that the source has to ‘exclusively’ mention Charlotte. Personally, I don’t agree with that viewpoint because things such as surnames are family matters and are not restricted to individuals. But nevertheless you can mention this on the discussion section and see if the other users accept the source or not. Also, as far as I checked, the consensus was towards listing only given names but with an altered parameter in the infobox. Keivan.f^Talk 21:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Princess Muna al-Hussein Name

Hi Keiven, I undid one of your modifications on Princess Muna al-Hussein page, her birth name is Toni NOT Antoinette. Antoinette is a name given to her by media. You can check more here : https://www.nytimes.com/1972/12/26/archives/husseins-exwife-is-given-her-4-children-and-palace.html https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/who-is-princess-muna-al-hussein-100152/ https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/gardiner-antoinette-1941 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.253.43.119 (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I added The New York Times article as a source for the name. Keivan.f^Talk 03:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Steps

Beyoncé, Solange, and Bianca Lawson's infoboxes were recently edited to showcase that they are step relatives, which I know you said isn't supposed to be listed there. I can remove it from Solange but since the others are protected, could you edit them and leave a message for the editor who re-added it? I considered leaving the person a message myself, but I think they might respect your word more, being that you have more experience here than me. 2600:1702:2A40:3E40:A1C9:9723:D898:7CCA (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Cihangir Ghaffari

Dear Keivan.f! Can you check an article Cihangir Ghaffari? Thank you! --89.110.19.198 (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Hope you're doing well. The subject appears to be notable to some extent. I did some minor adjustments but as a new article it needs to be approved by an administrator or article reviewer. Since it was created a month ago I feel that it might actually be approved by now. However, if you feel the subject is not notable and fails our notability guidelines, you might make a request at my or another user's talk page and a deletion discussion can be opened, to which you can also contribute. Keivan.f^Talk 21:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to nothing

Why would you trash a valid list and redirect to something that does not exist? If you weren't such an experienced editor I'd consider it a clear case of vandalism. Serious mistake? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: Yes, it was a mistake. Please realize that I'm a human and I cannot be flawless. The thing is that there was a short list within the article on Gotland which listed the dukes and duchesses, but it was a duplicate of a similar list found on Duchies in Sweden. I removed the duplicate list from Gotland but then I forgot to change the redirect. Also, the issue with the Duke of Södermanland redirect was that a source had been cited within the subsection's title which prevented it from working properly. So I changed the source's location and the redirect works now. Keivan.f^Talk 17:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I make lots of mistakes. Thanks. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Kingsif (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Put simply, the Duke of Edinburgh's children are not titles. And those titles will not always apply to those people. Grow up with getting pissy about your preferred way of phrasing names. Kingsif (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Was this snark necessary

[3] Really? When I pointed out the links to you, and had not piped that mess but tried cleaning it previously, too? Or are you still being pissy because you don't like how WP has titled its articles on nobility not even related to your country. Grow up. Kingsif (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

——Serial 11:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful work

Phenomenal and persistent work expanding the article on the funeral of Phillip, thank you. No Swan So Fine (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@No Swan So Fine: Thank you so much for your message, I appreciate it. I think the important topics are covered for now. We can then add information about the funeral service inside the chapel and guests in due course. Keivan.f^Talk 19:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I do wish we had modern HQ pics of St George's Chapel. That'll be next year's project! No Swan So Fine (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For diligent work on the new article: Death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Peter Ormond (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond: Thank you very much! :) Keivan.f^Talk 02:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Question about your article move

According to logs I've seen, on 24/1 this year you moved Theodora (6th century) to Theodora (wife of Justinian I). There's no reason stated, and I cannot find any discussion preceding it. Was this the result of a move discussion, and if so where was it held? If not, then I assume it was just you being WP:BOLD, in which case I'm afraid I must disagree with your contribution and point out it contradicts the result of a 2015 RM. If that's the case, I feel inclined to either move it back myself or start a new RM discussion.

Please explain, and ping me in replies. Gaioa (T C L) 14:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Gaioa and thanks for the message. I wasn’t aware of the old RM, yet I moved the page per WP:TITLECON since we usually disambiguate between these individuals based on their lineage or marriage. There are dozens of examples which I cannot list here, but it’s better to respect the results of the RM. I’ll try to open a new RM to see if we can get a new consensus. Regards. Keivan.f^Talk 14:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

External linking and Queen Mother

So curious question. Why was my edit in the external linking undone? As far as I can tell, adding the official link to the Canadian commemoration surrounding the event would comply with WP:EL (it "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail"). Additionally, the link I removed in said section was already linked in the reference section, which WP:ELRC generally recommends against duplicating said links in the EL section. nevermind I actually realized those were two separate links and was rightfully reverted. I guess just the first question. Leventio (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Leventio: Sorry for the delayed response. I removed it because I believe commemorations released by governments are not necessarily suitable for the external links section. Instead, I planned to add it to the footnote that includes Canada as one of the countries that expressed condolences. That way, the link would be included in the references section. Keivan.f^Talk 21:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

​ Never mind. It's actually dated April 2013 not 2021, and it covers details about bestowing an honor upon him (which has nothing to do with his death). In that case, it should be moved to the appropriate section on List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and used as a reference there (It's now under the "Commonwealth honours" section). Keivan.f^Talk 21:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Your mistaking the purpose of that EL (or rather the top paragraph used in the webpage), that webpage itself is not a dated April 2013 (the quote at the top of the page is from April 2013, but the page itself was only created 9 April 2021). That is homepage for the official commemoration page for the Canadian government (the Government of Canada places all dating of its webpages at the bottom left corner of the article), and includes links to the commemoration events page [official ceremony in Ottawa], the condolence book listing, and other related links (they just choose to put his April 2013 Order of Canada citation at the top). I've restored that EL for this reason and reverted its inclusion in the honours list (his actual citation for said honour would be posted on the GG website in Canada anyhow).

Additionally, as my header implied, my question was directed for the Death and funeral of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother and the Canadian government official commemoration ceremony webpage for that article for her death (I added it there because there wasn't a relevant section in said article, and creating a new section to incorporate it is rather excessive considering the current scope of that article is largely focused on the focused arrangements, hence my emphasis in the original comment for inclusion due to reasons such as copyright or amount of detail Leventio (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Religion parameter

Hi Keivan, this parameter has not been in use so it is deleted, please do not insert it, thanks. --Egeymi (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Egeymi. I’m afraid you have confused infobox person with infobox royalty because it hasn’t been deleted from infobox royalty and still works. If you are against including the religion parameter in general, then you can start a discussion and try to get a consensus to have it removed from the list of parameters of infobox royalty. But as far as I can see, religion has been listed for members of the Pahlavi dynasty and since it works with this infobox I decided to include it. Best. Keivan.f^Talk 09:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

"Not notable"

Why are you removing names of parents and such as "not notable"? WP:Notability is not relevant there. Dicklyon (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Quote from Template:Infobox person: Names of parents; include only if they are independently notable or particularly relevant. For multiple entries, use an inline list. If subject has only one notable mother and/or only one notable father, Keivan.f^Talk 03:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'm learning something here. But you need a better edit summary perhaps, since notable doesn't explain it without that extra info. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: You're right. I simply assumed that users were familiar with the instructions for the template, but I'll try to include a better edit summary in the future. :) Keivan.f^Talk 03:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Emrah - Ya Hey.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Unreasonable transfer

What is your reason for transferring Akbar Khorramdin's article? This article is a translation from Persian language. To transmit it, a Persian conveyor must also be transferred.--Khadempour322 (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Akbar Khorramdin is a murderer who killed 3 people, so he has a good reputation, like Esmail Rangraz.--Khadempour322 (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Khadempour322: Persian and English Wikipedia guidelines regarding notability are not exactly the same. Not to mention that you copy paste information in Persian into a translator, which results in a horribly poor English translation that needs to be corrected. And I’m also growing suspicious about some possible copyvio issues here. Also, for your information, we have thousands of murderers around the world and not all of them are notable. Keivan.f^Talk 22:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

If there is a problem with the article, you should leave it to the poll. Instead of deleting all the information and transferring it, the article made is well-known to other users and has no problem.--Khadempour322 (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Khadempour322: لطفا در صفحه بحث مربوط به حذف مقاله به فارسی کامنت نگذارید. برای این که خلاف قوانین ویکی‌ان هست. صرف این که اسم این شخص در فضای مجازی پیچیده نباید برای ایشان صفحه مجزا ایجاد کنیم. ذاتا اطلاعاتی که در این مقاله هست به راحتی در مقاله پسرش می‌تواند درج شود. از نظر صحت منابع هم تا آنجایی که دیدم ایشان مستقل از پسرشان تحت پوشش نبوده‌اند. در ضمن، هر روز درهرجای دنیا قاتل‌های زنجیره‌ای دستگیر می‌شوند و در اخبار هم نامشان می‌پیچد ولی ما برای هرکدامشان مقاله مجزا نداریم. چون اینجا یک دانشنامه است و وبسایت خبری نیست. مسئله را هم شخصی نکنید. در طی روزهای گذشته خود بنده مقالاتی که توسط شما ایجاد شده بود را از نظر گرامر و ظاهر ویرایش کردم. مسئله خصومت شخصی نیست، بلکه فقدان سرشناسی برای این شخص است. Keivan.f^Talk 23:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

بلع درست میگیویید من از این مسله بی اطلاع بودم و با نظر شما نسبتا موافق هستم ولی برایم عجیب است چطور اسماعیل رنگرز شهرت دارد به نظر شما نمیشود ایشان را هم در مقاله اتنا اضافه شود؟ از بابت کمک هایتان هم تشکر میکنم دوست من چون من از قوانین بی اطلاع هستم ولی دوست دارم در اینجا فعالیت کنم اگر اشتباهی از من دیدید به من اطلاع دهید تا ویرایشم را تصحیح کنم با تشکر.--Khadempour322 (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Khadempour322: درود دوباره. در مورد مقاله اسماعیل رنگرز به نظر می‌رسد قاتل از مقتول سرشناس‌تر باشد. درحالی که در پرونده بابک خرمدین مقتول از سرشناسی بیشتری برخوردار است. مصداق دیگری که قاتل چندان سرشناس نیست پرونده علیرضا فاضلی منفرد است که توسط برادرناتنی‌اش کشته شد ولی ما مقاله‌ای در ارتباط با آن شخص نداریم. با این وجود اگر احساس می‌کنید کلیت مقاله مرتبط با اسماعیل رنگرز شایستگی یه صفحه جداگانه را ندارد می‌توانید آن را نامزد حذف کنید تا‌ کاربران در موردش به اجماع برسد. نکته دیگر این که عدم آشناییتان با قوانین به علت تازه‌وارد بودن طبیعی است. فقط به خاطر داشته باشید که هرچیزی که در ویکی‌فا و یا در ویکی‌ان می‌نویسید باید کلمات خودتان باشد و صرفاً کپی کردن از منابع نقض قوانین کپی‌رایت به شمار می‌رود. در مورد مقالاتی که به زبان انگلیسی هستند هم نهایت تلاشتان را بکنید تا خودتان جملات را بنویسید چون که موتورهای ترجمه معمولاً حاوی غلط‌های گرامری هستند و گاهاً حتی معنای جمله را هم عوض می‌کنند. اگر سوالی داشتید هم می‌توانید در صفحه بحث من یا دیگر کاربران پیام بگذارید تا شک و تردیدی برایتان باقی نماند. شب و روزتان خوش. Keivan.f^Talk 05:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

بسیار هم عالی ممنون از راهنمایی که کردی داداش گلم. مقاله اخری تقریبا خودم نوشتم به نظرت خوبه؟ ویرایشاتم دیدم تو مقاله تشکر میکنم ازت و یک مسئله راجع به اکبر خرمدین؛ این شخص ۳ قتل انجام داده به روش مثله کردن که خیلی وحشتناکه. به نظرت ایا بازم شهرت نداره؟ راجع به ترنسی هم که گفتی بدلیل ترنس بودنش زیاد بازتاب خبری تو داخل نداشت ولی اکبر خرمدین داشت به این منظور ایجادش کردم--Khadempour322 (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Khadempour322: درود دوباره. شخص اگر قاتل هم باشد باید معیارهای سرشناسی را برای داشتن مقاله جداگانه را داشته باشد. نکته دیگر این که قتل بابک خرمدین به اندازه قتل علریضا منفرد بازتاب جهانی نداشت و در هر دو مورد قاتل‌ها دارای بیوگرافی یا حرفه‌ی خاصی نیستند که بخواهیم برایشان صفحه مجزا داشته باشیم. در مورد مقاله فارسی ولی می‌شود نرم‌تر برخورد کرد چون به حد کافی در رسانه‌های داخلی ایران پوشش داده شده. اما در آن مورد هم باز باید کاربران به اجماع برسند. مقاله اخیرت را هم دیدم. یک جمله در پاراگراف اول مبهم بود که تگش کردم. در این بین، از ماشین‌های ترجمه برای ترجمه کردن کلمات و جملات می‌شود استفاده کرد فقط همانطور که گفتم این جملات قبل از ثبت نیاز به بازخوانی و اصلاح از طرف خود سازنده مقاله دارند تا اشتباه گرامری و معنایی وجود نداشته باشد. Keivan.f^Talk 15:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Negin Parsa

سلام دوست من خوب هستی با عرض معذرت که مزاحم شدم من مقاله نگین پارسا رو ایجاد کردم رفته به نظرخواهی و در اونجا راجب منابع بحث است و یک کاربر خواسته یک کاربر تایید کنه که منابع فارسی راجب همین شخص اگر وقت کردی ی سری بزن من دقیقا نمیدونستم چی باید جوابشو بدم داداش.--Khadempour322 (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Muhteşem Yüzyıl: Kösem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mustafa Üstündağ.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mark Eliyahu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oriental music.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Meghan Markle

Hi Keivan,

How come there is a lot of “palace sources” propaganda pieces on Meghan’s page? Why is it relevant for Wikipedia to add that “palace sources” claimed the Queen didn’t approve of the name? Harry and Meghan are on the record and the “palace sources” are anonymous, so why would another gossip story get added to their wiki? What is so significant about this story that it needs to be part of their bio? The palaces courtiers goal with making such incendiary comments was never to correct anything, it was to ensure that the world knows the first biracial girl in the family is unwanted by the courtiers. So why perpetuate this? Also, the bullying claims which are clearly anti Harry and Meghan propaganda from the palace (which is why Harry and Meghan have not lost any business partners or supporters, so obvious it’s palace propaganda ), doesn’t Wikipedia risk acting as a propaganda arm for the Monarchy by posting information that is put out just in the hopes of sullying a person and for it to be attached to them even if nothing comes from it? I also didn’t see that any of the other family members had the “racism” accusation attached to them on their page. It’s either William, Kate or Charles, and I don’t see it on their profile. I also don’t see that “Kate made Meghan cry” on Kates page? I guess my worry is that Harry and Meghan are being treated differently and palace propaganda is being allowed on their page before any resolution, or serious public reflection & distance from the events. I don’t see this type of stuff on anyone else’s page - Thank you for reading Sarah DigitialNomad (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. Hope you’re doing well. As far as I know neither me nor anyone else here acts as an arm for the monarchy (I’m not saying you aimed at anyone but I just said that for clarification). What is being reported here is what that has been reported in reliable sources. In other words, claims on both sides have to be included to reach a neutral point of view. We don’t know whether what Meghan says is the absolute truth or what the courtiers say; maybe the truth lies somewhere in between. But as long as all of them just continue to come up with claims against one another we can hypothetically include them in their pages to some extent and as long as reliable sources extensively cover them. We also really don’t know what the whole thing about their daughter’s name is. It could be racism, or it could again be another episode in the whole drama in which recollections vary all the time. It seems that the whole thing is the result of miscommunication and misinterpretation on both sides. Additionally, Meghan and Harry never revealed who made racist comments about their son. Some even say that there were not any racist comments at all and it was again some sort of misinterpretation. Whatever it was, since the couple didn’t give a name away we cannot jump onto Charles, William and Kate’s pages and label them as racists. As a matter of fact, none of the reliable news agencies, outlets and the media have labeled them as racists and neither should we. On the matter of bullying allegations, there were complaints filed by staff against Meghan. She says that she didn’t bully anyone. Again, both sides are included to create a neutral point of view. In short, we should not be bashing Meghan unnecessarily for claims and allegations that target her, but we should not praise her unnecessarily either. Also, not everything from their Oprah interview can be covered on Meghan’s page (such as Kate making her cry, which is a claim that Kate hasn’t responded to). The whole thing about that interview is covered on its own respective page. If you feel there might be information or parts that are not necessarily fit for Meghan’s page (or any page in general), you can always raise the issue on the talk page and get a consensus to add or remove different sections. Hope you have a great day. Keivan.f^Talk 21:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Keivan. The nameless and faceless Palace source claims you believe are equal to someone who speaks on the record are The Queens Close aides according to the reporter himself. So you can certainly can add that to The Queen’s Page then. Considering they’ve been added to Harry and Meghan’s page based on your assessment that the sources and report from British papers are reliable. BTW not sure why you mentioned we shouldn’t praise Meghan? Praise or criticism isn’t what Wikipedia is for, so I’m not sure why you would bring that up. I also don’t think Wikipedia is for adding stories based on “anonymous sources” that someone is denying or pushing back on “On the record”. Especially British reporters who use literally anyone who’ve ever meet the Royal family as a “palace source”. These aides are tasked to spread misinformation and confuse. I have something longer for you on the bullying allegations where the only acts we read are slurs against Meghan and nothing describing any action she took to bully anyone. Don’t have time to put it together now. / Sarah

Hello again, Sarah. I’d be interested to read more on the allegations of bullying, etc. For now I just wanted to mention that we don’t discriminate against papers and the media from all different nations, whether it be American, British, Korean, etc. That being said, tabloids such as Daily Mail are not considered reliable sources, but The Times, The Telegraph and The Guardian are. Regarding issue of praising and criticizing, you actually said what I intended to say in the first place. Unnecessary criticism and unnecessary praises are not welcome. Now on the bullying issue, we actually do have a name (Jason Knauf if I remember correctly) and an investigation is taking place into those allegations. Whether it be the truth or a smear campaign it is noteworthy and should be mentioned. Regarding the baby’s name, however, since no specific name has been brought up one could argue for its exclusion. In fact I might actually put it up for discussion on the article’s talk page to get consensus for either removing or keeping it. Meanwhile, I’ll be looking forward to reading your feedback again in the future. Stay safe. Keivan.f^Talk 19:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I just don’t understand the rush. Why we are adding unresolved stuff instantly? Imagine if wiki had been around at the height of the other royals scandals and news frenzies, their pages would be filled with daily articles where they are going back and forth against eachother in the media using anonymous source. What is the urgency? Why not wait, get some perspective and then add it if it’s something that needs to be attached to someone’s page. It’s not fair that one page will be filled with stories from “anonymously sourced” stories, probably planted as propaganda. That would require us to go back to all the royals history and put in every story the size of the Lili name and all the other stories on Meghan’s page for them too. Over the years there have been plenty of stories and accusations coming from anonymous Royal aides that Royal family members has to go on the record and dispute. I mean Charles and Diana’s age would be the seize of a book. Same with the other members, money scandals, bribery, dealings with foreign government allegations etc… Offshore money etc all which the family members have disputed or given interviews to defend themselves.

You have every right to question the content of an article and I agree with you. That not all stuff in the media should be reflected in an encyclopedic article. As I said, I'll put it up for discussion to get a consensus about what we should do. And don't forget to participate as well. Keivan.f^Talk 20:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain why you use faceless Palace sources as reference? Why dont you link those negative articles to the other members of the family MAmponsah (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Because it doesn’t concern other members of the family. And your argument that similar sections don’t exist in similar pages is also void. As an example the article on the Countess of Wessex is full of scandalous media stories about her that were widely reported. As I said before, we are not here to either praise or criticize anyone. Everything is reported the way it has been reflected in reliable sources; whether it be British or American. Keivan.f^Talk 02:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For the creation of Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria, which I had been considering for a long time. Thanks and best wishes! Peter Ormond 💬 17:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond: Hi. Thank you so much for the barnstar. I appreciate it. Feel free to further expand the article if you have more information on hand. Regards! Keivan.f^Talk 23:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Prince Philippos of Greece for deletion

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

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Philippos of Greece until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit summaries

As someone reminded me yesterday I should remind you that you should add edit summaries to make others easily understand what you've done. Thanks--Egeymi (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Egeymi: I usually add a summary once I make a very big change to an article, but I'll try to use them more frequently to keep other users up to date with my recent changes. Thanks for the reminder. Keivan.f^Talk 08:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Hello, I'm Ramy5077. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Nancy 10, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Ramy5077 (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Check the page’s history for the original date. Keivan.f^Talk 17:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Dubious source

Hi. I wanted to talk you about the articles of the consorts of the Ottoman sultans. I've recently realised and recognised Kadınefendiler, 1839-1924 by Harun Açba as a dubious source. And so I removed much of the information from the articles which I had written from that source. And I'm also planning to remove the information that I had cited from this source. Açba's information doesn't align with the sources he provide as well other sources which I have looked into. As a result of this, many articles have become way too short to be articles anymore. The reason to write this to you was that if you can look into this matter, like what to do with the articles whether to keep them or delete them. Thanks. Retrieverlove (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Retrieverlove. Have you prepared a list containing the names of these short articles? Because even though many of them could be stubs at this point, some could still pass the notability criteria. That's why I'd recommend nominating them for deletion so other users can also weigh in. Keivan.f^Talk 05:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you check out the following articles whether they are stubs or not and if they pass the nobility criteria: Zeynifelek Hanım, Nükhetsezâ Hanım, Nalandil Hanım, Ceylanyar Hanım, Navekmisal Hanım, Mahitab Kadın, Nesrin Hanım, Nergizev Hanım, Hayranidil Kadın, Edadil Kadın, Dürrüaden Kadın, Dilfirib Kadın, Remzşinas Hanım, Resan Hanım, and Nevdürr Hanım. Retrieverlove (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Retrieverlove: Well, I looked at them all. Yes, some of them are short and could potentially be labeled as stubs, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they should be deleted. We have thousand of articles on historical figures that are stubs but are kept as the article itself is well-sourced. I noticed that despite the fact that you removed references tp Harun Açba's book, the material in these articles is still supported by other sources. Now since I'm not an expert on the subject only you can tell whether those remaining sources are reliable enough to be used as references and whether they are actually supporting what is being said in those pages. If that's the case, I think it's fine and they can be kept. But if the remaining info and sources are also questionable or the references do not uphold the material, then a deletion discussion would become a necessity. Keivan.f^Talk 15:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey!!

Good job on what you did on British royal family articles but what will you do next on Meghan’s article after you added contents about her 40th birthday celebration. Do you have some ideas on adding new section onto the article? Definitelyduke255 (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Definitelyduke255: Hello, and thanks for your message. Yes, I have worked on various articles about British royals over the years, and I try to keep the sections about their charity works and appearances updated. Usually other users and I try to add a few sentences about new initiatives and campaigns on the main articles but keep more detailed stuff for other related pages where the topics can be covered extensively. For example, I included more details about Meghan's 40x40 initiative on the Archewell page. Similarly, details about Catherine's Centre for Early Childhood can be found on The Royal Foundation page, but it's briefly mentioned on her page as well. At this point I think I will not be adding any new sections to the article on Meghan but if you have any specific ideas or suggestions feel free to share them with everyone. Regards. Keivan.f^Talk 22:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	100.000 Edit
	Thank you for all of contribution. Best, Victor Trevor (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Victor Trevor: Hi. Thank you so much for the barnstar. I appreciate it :) Keivan.f^Talk 00:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Your recent editing history at Umm Kulthum bint Jarwal shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Thanks for the warning but the issue is being discussed at Talk:Omar right now. But I’ll try to not get carried away in the future. Keivan.f^Talk 13:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Notability (pilot)

Hi, Keivan! Hope you're doing well. I would like to ask you a question. Are there any that specific notability criteria of pilots on English Wikipedia? --Victor Trevor (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Victor Trevor: Hi. I am very well, thanks. I hope it is the same with you too. Well, the question sounds a bit vague to me, because you could be referring to either an aircraft pilot or a television pilot, but I guess it’s the former that you’re asking about. For aircraft pilots, whether military or civilian, you have to follow WP:NBIO, specifically WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Additionally for more information and help you can always check Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation and ask some experts to weigh in with their opinions. For TV pilots and episodes, it should satisfy the criteria on Wikipedia:Television episodes. Let me know if you have any other questions. Keivan.f^Talk 23:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Ways to improve Ahmet Tansu Taşanlar

Hello, Keivan.f,

Thank you for creating Ahmet Tansu Taşanlar.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This article needs more references to meet WP:NACTOR

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Jubilee draft

The draft is available here. I have also included a list of sources. Feel free to expand it. Peter Ormond 💬 05:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond: Thanks for making the draft. I will start working on it by December (drafts are valid for at least 6 months, so I guess we have plenty of time). In the meantime, you and others can definitely keep working on it. I'll join you guys as soon as I can, but I'll check to see if I can find more sources until then. Keivan.f^Talk 05:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Privacy and media

Fantastic (!!!) job on sorting out the multitude of topics on Meghan, Duchess of Sussex#Privacy and media. The cleanup was a long time coming and makes the section substantially easier to navigate. Many thanks and best wishes.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bettydaisies: Thanks. Yes, it was getting really hard to keep track of information, so I thought it would be better to break them down into subsections. You're welcome to add new info, and I'll also try my best to keep it updated. Regards. Keivan.f^Talk 01:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Cadet branches of Japanese royal family

Hi, I'm not sure what to do on the infobox on the page Imperial House of Japan. There's a section for cadet branches but I have some issues with it and I'm not sure how to even lay it out properly so I hope this turns out coherent. For a very long time, it was populated by the mention of these few households headed by junior male members of the family like Prince Akishino, Prince Mikasa and so on but people used the words house rather than the princely title. House of Katsura was there too but it was removed after the prince, and sole member of it, died some years ago but we still have Houses Mikasa and Takamado there even though they're agnatically extinct but some female members survive so I'm guessing this is why no one removed them. Recently someone added several Japanese clans who sort of are cadet branches of the imperial family but some former proper cadet branches were omitted and I added them now because they technically qualify even though most are either extinct or reduced to commoners now but the same is true for those clans. My question is how many cadet branches should we have here anyway and it's confusing for me because they're all basically princely or ducal titles that sort of function as surnames of clans and some commoners now. I browsed some European examples and they have different approaches. House Saxe-Coburg-Gotha lists several cadet branches that they have, both extant and extinct while House Romanov merely uses the word several and redirects you to a page where you have different lines laid out in detail. What should we do with Japan's page? I'd also like to point out that Katsura was the name of a proper and now extinct cadet branch of the family but the name was reused for one of Hirohito's nephews to start his own cadet branch that died out anyway. Again, I'm sorry if this is too messy. --Killuminator (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Killuminator: Hi. Hope you are doing well. Yes, I understood what you were trying to say. I think the problem with the Imperial House of Japan is the fact that it has existed for a very long time, and all the emperors basically belong to the same dynasty (sometimes called the Yamato dynasty if I remember correctly). In any case, it is possible for a royal or imperial house to branch down into some other houses. In this case, the cadet branches are descendants of a common ancestral house. For example, House of Plantagenet was branched into House of Lancaster and House of York, which became two different royal houses. I don't think anyone would consider Houses Mikasa and Takamado different from the imperial family at this point. They are all members of the same family and basically belong to the same house, so Akishino, Mikasa and Hitachi are not cadet branches but subdivisions within the current imperial house. I think the ones you added can be labeled as cadet branches, such as the Shinnōke and Ōke. I assume the clans such as Minamoto and Taira had an emperor (or empress) or a prince as their ancestor which would make them qualified as well. But I suggest keeping the list concise and short, including only clans that were really prominent and notable. Including a general name that would cover multiple clans could also be helpful (such as the Shinnōke which covers multiple branches so you don't have to list all four branches within it). Even if the list becomes a little bit long you can turn it into a collapsable list. It's not a big deal but as I said, it is preferable to showcase only the notable cadet branches in the infobox. Keivan.f^Talk 04:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I am doing well. Thank you for the response. I also have a separate issue if you have the time. I posted this on another user's talk page some time ago but he wasn't sure what to do and I didn't get a response from the heraldrly project either. Here's the text: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Surtsicna&diff=prev&oldid=1022633598. --Killuminator (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Killuminator: I think that issue would be solved by adding the word "man". So instead of saying "the Duke of Cambridge is the 1000th Knight of the Garter" it would be more appropriate to say "he is the 1000th man to be appointed as a Knight of the Garter". For the list, we can divide it into KG and LG, but then Anne should be listed under KG. Another alternative would be to ignore the KG and LG ranks, and simply divide the list into "men vs. women" or "male vs. female", based on which Anne will automatically go under the female branch and the issue will be solved. Keivan.f^Talk 05:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Hello, I find myself editing something related. Princess Mako recently married and now uses her husband's surname but that's not the issue here. The page was titled Princess Mako of Akishino before the move and there's basically an edit war now so I inserted some sources for the full, formal title and from the agency that governs imperial household matters. The problem is, even those two damned words of Akishino are that much of an issue for editors who eject them, why have the pages for other current princesses even styled that way? Her sister's page is still called Princess Kako of Akishino and you have a Princess Akiko of Mikasa, Princess Tsuguko of Takamado etc. You have someone on the talk page saying stuff like why is this here, she's married now but that's like including a maiden surname of a famous woman on Wikipedia. The conflict over these two stupid words is driving me against a wall over the sheer pettiness and inconsistency. This is a bit of a rant on my end but I'm turning to you so we can try to find some long-term solutions. I think it's a bit similar to Princess Beatrice and Eugenie in the United Kingdom if people pretended these women were never, ever styled something like Princess Eugenie of York and saying this information should not be included. These Japanese royals also had a lengthy dispute over article names so Wikipedia went from something like Prince Akishino to Fumihito, Prince Akishino once people realized these are titles rather than names. I hope this stuff all makes sense. Let me know what you think. --Killuminator (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Killuminator: Hello. First of all, I wanted to say that your comments make total sense. I know that for a few days the page has been going back and forth with people adding and removing "of Akishino" from her name. Note that for each royal family or country the naming conventions are different so we cannot really compare the Japanese imperial family to British, Spanish or Thai royal families; each establishment has their own rules regarding names and titles. That is why I decided to look into the website of the Imperial Household Agency and check how the name was written in Japanese. To me it is obvious that there is a lack of consistency with their website when it comes to translating titles and names, because on the page about her parents and their activities and similarly in the family tree shown in the genealogy section, she's solely referred to as Her Imperial Highness Princess Mako or simply Princess Mako, and her name in Japanese was 眞子内親王 (Mako Naishinnō) with no mention of 'Akishino' anywhere. I noted that the only people on that family tree who have their names formatted as "Prince/ss of X" are Prince Tomohito of Mikasa and Princess Tomohito of Mikasa, and that's because Tomohito was his father's heir and was supposed to inherit the title of "Prince Mikasa" after his death (which never happened because he predeceased him). In any case, I think if we were to go with what the official website says the "of X" suffix should be dropped for Kako, Hisahito, Akiko, Yoko, and Tsuguko. I also noted that they refer to Fumihito and Kiko as Crown Prince Akishino and Crown Princess Akishino instead of Prince and Princess Akishino, so that should be another thing that needs to be dealt with as well. Let me know what you think, and we can simply open new WP:RMs to get consensus and have the pages moved accordingly. Keivan.f^Talk 19:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I think two discussions would be fine. I'm not necessarily in favor of dropping the names from article titles or including them in the text but if these are their formal titles, no matter how rarely or inconsistently used, it ought to be mentioned. It's just two brief words after all. As for the current heir to the throne, he carries a unique sort of title that was historically given to younger brothers of emperors who were heirs presumptive. I perused the previous discussion and someone pointed out that crown prince is a rather descriptive term, not so much a formal title in many cases yet it is true that the imperial household agency chose to interpret that title as an equivalent of crown prince just like emperor emeritus conveys the same description of a retired emperor (which has a Japanese term). These terms reflect a rather recent translation and cultural issue due to the abdication and succession circumstances in recent years. Ideally, I'd like it if we could find a native speaker to explain some things and at least set some consistent policy and explanations for the articles. Let me know if you do start something and try to stitch some overview for both topics (crown prince and princely titles for other members of the family). Also, princesses have like four different terms for the word depending if they were born or married into the family and how closely related they are to an emperor. I think there's a mention of that on the main page for the family but some expansion and explanation wouldn't hurt either. --Killuminator (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Killuminator: Well, I think the only way to get proper input from other users would be through a WP:RM, one for Fumihito and Kiko, and another for Hisahito and the princesses. That way we may able to get a consensus as to what method of naming we should follow. I’ll try to work on a proper paragraph for each request and I’ll notify you once I have opened the discussions. I’ll also try to look at the Imperial Household Agency website again to see if there is other evidence of them using the “Prince/ss of X” format when referring to members of the family. Keivan.f^Talk 19:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd be remiss to omit this. Princess Akiko of Mikasa did some cultural ambassador thingy in Switzerland and was referred to by this, formal title in two sources: Asia Society (an organization in America) and the Japanese embassy in Switzerland. https://asiasociety.org/switzerland/events/conversation-princess-akiko-mikasa + https://www.ch.emb-japan.go.jp/itpr_de/princess_akiko_of_mikasa_2017.html I think they're fairly authoritative sources, especially the latter. Frankly, I think they're likely often omitted for the sake of brevity. --Killuminator (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Killuminator: Well, an embassy is an office run by the government, so how they refer to a member of the imperial family or a person who holds a public office should be taken into consideration. I guess it’s better to leave the articles on Kako, Hisahito, Akiko, Yōko, and Tsuguko alone at this point. What I guess needs to be addressed is the situation with Fumihito and Kiko’s articles, because on the website of the Imperial Household Agency they are referred to as 秋篠宮皇嗣殿下 (Akishinonomiya kōshi denka; HIH Crown Prince Akishino) and 秋篠宮皇嗣妃殿下 (Akishinonomiya kōshihi denka; HIH Crown Princess Akishino), but Fumihito’s article is still at 秋篠宮文仁親王 (Akishinonomiya Fumihito shinnō; Fumihito, Prince Akishino) on the Japanese Wikipedia. I have decided to take the issue to Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers to see what their rationale has been for naming the article as such. I’m sure they’ll be able to offer some insight. Keivan.f^Talk 20:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I Googled his personal name (Fumihito) and it's wall-to-wall usage of crown prince before his name in both Japanese sources in their English version and English language sources like the BBC. With this in mind and seeing how a few years have passed since the transition, I believe the time is ripe to revisit this with a fresh set of eyes. He had a different title in his childhood so I think it's very sensible to use the most recent one and the most prominent one in the title. I wouldn't change the opening line in the article. --Killuminator (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Killuminator: Well, I have posted a message on the Japanese Wikipedia to see what the native speakers have to say about their choice of name for the Japanese version of Fumihito's article. I'll look into what they say in their response (of course if they respond) and I will also look at the sources in English to conclude what the appropriate title for the page could be. We could then put it up for discussion, along with the one about his wife, and hopefully the pages will get moved. Keivan.f^Talk 06:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

RM for Japanese crown prince & crown princess

Howdy. Though we disagreed about it in May 2019, I do concede that you were/are correct. The Japanese emperor's brother does have the title crown prince & his sister-in-law the title crown princess. Therefore I 'would' support 'changing' their article titles, to reflect that fact. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Hello! Well, I think you were not entirely wrong back in May 2019, because he was not declared crown prince until November 2020, which is not unprecedented as his brother Naruhito was also named first in line in 1991 rather than in 1990, the year in which their father ascended the throne (I guess it's like Charles being Prince of Wales since 1958 but not having his investiture until 1969). Though I guess we should go with what the Imperial Household Agency calls the couple 1, rather than what the normal way of setting titles up for heirs is on Wikipedia; so it should be Fumihito, Crown Prince Akishino instead of Fumihito, Crown Prince of Japan. I guess I'll open up a discussion in the upcoming days. Cheers! Keivan.f^Talk 01:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

I had started looking at your contributions before I saw that you had withdrawn the request. One obvious problem is your sporadic use of the DEFAULTSORT parameter. Please go over your bios and add the missing ones. Also, stub tags go last as per MOS:ORDER. Would welcome you back once whatever it is that made you withdraw has been resolved. Schwede66 00:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Thank you for your message. Yes, the problem has been resolved but I decided to withdraw at the moment since I didn't want that request to be used against me. Since the matter has been settled, I will probably submit a new request in the upcoming days. Cheers! Keivan.f^Talk 00:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Yurdaer Okur has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Yurdaer Okur. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Meghan’s page is not encyclopedic it’s a list of her daily events.

The twitter section on Meghan Markles page is not encyclopedic and also the royal commentator who is used a reference is not reading the original report correctly. Why is there a link about something so minor on Meghan’s page, but no one added the major NYT article about William and Kate buying followers on Instagram? The whole twitter section is not encyclopedic and does not belong on Wikipedia. Especially since the sources used aren’t reading the data correctly. Kevian, do you just allow anything on Meghan’s page? Are there special rules for Meghan’s page? DigitialNomad (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@DigitialNomad: First of all, I'm not in charge of Meghan's page. I'm a contributor. Anything that is of concern to you should be discussed with the community on the article's talk page. Anyway, I guess it would be better for you to focus on Meghan's page when you're trying to make an argument. I cannot understand why you keep bringing up William and Kate's names. The suggestion that William and Kate have been buying followers cannot be proven. Whereas Meghan has been attacked or supported by trolls according to published studies (the section is pretty much balanced and neutral in its coverage). I suggest you go and look at the privacy and the media section on William's article as well, which discusses his "dad dancing" and the removal of a segment from a recently aired documentary. Additionally, it is not up to you or even me to define what's encyclopedic or not. It's up to the community as a whole. You have been throwing that word around recently, pretty much dictating what is or is not encyclopedic. You have every right to challenge any given info, but you cannot make final decisions on your own. And avoid conflict of interest, because we cannot write articles from a fan's point of view. I'll bring the issue up on the article's talk page to see what the community thinks. Keivan.f^Talk 01:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no evidence Meghan Markle was supported by trolls. That’s not what the article says. DigitialNomad (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what the article says. Keivan.f^Talk 15:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yurdaer Okur moved to draftspace

I moved this article to draft so that you can have time to improve the quality of sources for this article. I noticed that most of the sources are of very low quality, and are not the kind of thing we can use to generate a Wikipedia article.

Do not use the short description to argue over the quality of sources. Discuss with the reviewer on their talk page or on the draft talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Children

Do you really think children are like a third gender?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: Don't put words in my mouth. A woman "is an adult female human". Charlotte is not an adult female human. She's a child, thus she's a girl. That's basic English. And we don't have categories for boys and girls. The main category 21st-century British people is appropriate and sufficient. Keivan.f^Talk 23:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Imperial Household Law of Japan

Hello, I noticed that in one of your edits to the article Aiko, Princess Toshi you removed the refererence to Article 22 of Imperial Household Law. You stated in your edit summary that Article 22 only mentions the Emperor and Crown Prince. This is from the English language page of the Agency's website here: "...Coming-of-age - The majority age for the Emperor, the Kotaishi (Crown Prince, son of the Emperor) and the Kotaison (Crown Prince, grandson of the Emperor) is eighteen, while the age for other Imperial Family members is twenty [my italics] (Designated by the Imperial House Law, Article 22, and the Civil Code, Article 3)." Thus Article 22 applies to Aiko. Are you fluent in the Law's Japanese text? I don't read Japanese so I'll have abide by their translation. Blue Riband► 05:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Riband: Hello and thanks for your message. Well, I'm glad that you were able to find information on the official website that actually supports the original statement from the article. However, as far as I remember, the sentence from Aiko's article was referring specifically to the Article 22 of the Imperial Household Law. This is what Article 22 says: "The majority age for the Emperor, the Kotaishi and the Kotaison shall be eighteen." (Source: 1) Note that Kotaishi and Kotaison both mean crown prince, with the former used when the heir is the emperor's son and the latter for when he is the emperor's grandson. That's why I removed that piece of info from Aiko's article because it was not supported by this clause. I guess it could rewritten and added back to her article with a reference pointing to the page you found on the Imperial Household Agency's website, though that wouldn't be based on the Imperial Household Law obviously. Keivan.f^Talk 05:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I see the discrepancy - we are looking at two different web pages on the Agency site. It's probably a moot issue now as she has been presented to the public as an adult royal. Blue Riband► 06:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Riband: Right. Her cousins Mako and Kako also 'came of age' when they were 20. So I guess we just should look at each person's case separately and find sources that exclusively discuss them to avoid WP:OR. Keivan.f^Talk 13:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Grace Mirabella

On 28 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Grace Mirabella, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Barbara Niven info box

Keivan.f, the linking of her third husband is done in the body of the article under Personal Life. It is not necessary to also do it in the info box. Old Beeg ..warble·· 22:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Oldbeeg: Hello. Based on similar examples that I have seen in numerous articles, if a spouse, child or relative is notable enough to have an article on his/her own we link them in the info box as well. After all, the whole purpose of an info box is to highlight important info from the article and if we have pages on separate individuals it makes sense to link them in the info box as well. Keivan.f^Talk 22:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Prince Andrew, Duke of York

Hi Keivan.f, while it is extremely unlikely that your reasonable enforcement of verifiability leads to any sanctions, I feel I should point out that WP:3RR does exist and that, strictly speaking or broadly construed, you're probably far beyond three reverts. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Hello. Thanks for mentioning that. I sometimes get carried away, but I'm trying to ensure that the article remains neutral in coverage and contains accurate updated info. I'll try to reduce my number of edits or discuss some of the issues on the talk page before reverting. Thank you. Keivan.f^Talk 19:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your work and no worries from my side. Full protection had been requested at WP:RFPP; I hope extended-confirmed protection already helps to slow down the situation a bit. It would have made some of the reverts unnecessary, at least. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That would be helpful indeed. Thank you. At this point I think we have all the important pieces of info covered, so I expect less conflict between the editors, including me. And please feel free to make updates to the article as well, if you are interested in the topic. Additional help is always required :) Keivan.f^Talk 19:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Ladies of the Garter

Hello. This is a request for help. It's a colossal task so I'll understand if you find it daunting and if you're busy. It's about the page List of knights and ladies of the Garter. The gist of it is that you had separate pages for the knights and ladies and people decided to merge them but they didn't do much merging beyond modern times. It's a very old chivalric order founded in the medieval period but after a while, the kings stopped inducting women into the order for whatever reason and there was an enormous gap of several centuries before the practice was revived. I've added 18 entries out of some 64. The first 17 ladies (among which were posthumous honors interestingly enough) + one that was inducted much later but she was the first one I added, she was Countess of Arundel for reference. However, it's a maddening task because I've had to follow the format very closely. I had to place them chronologically, add pictures where there are any and check what their title was when they were honored for one box and what titles they had later for a different box. To make things worse for me, I messed up somewhere back in October or November and had to retrace my steps to fix the appearance of the table due to a single line. I've had other stuff to do then and now as well but I'd like to complete the page and I was wondering if you could help me or find some other volunteers to help. I added them mostly one by one in order to avoid messing up the table with an extra line or something plus I had to be careful with the dates, names and titles. Check my user page for a list of remaining entries. Some of them are easier than others and I calculated their order of induction. --Killuminator (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Killuminator. Hope you are doing well. First of all, sorry for my delayed response. I had been busy with a number of final exams and projects which just ended within the past two days. My schedule will only get busier in the upcoming months, which is why I spend less time on Wikipedia and more time on doing my tasks. Yours is definitely an interesting suggestion and I’m only too glad that someone has taken it upon himself to finally organize and complete that page. I will do my best to see if I can help in the upcoming days. I know it requires a little bit of focus and precision and I don’t want to get involved with a subject that I don’t have a full understanding of, but I’ll see what I can do and let you know if I decide to edit the page. Best. Keivan.f^Talk

I've been adding them gradually but I'll soon face a big obstacle. There were 8 additions in 1399 but the problem is that England had two kings that year, Richard II and Henry IV. I've no way of knowing who made these appointments. Do you know any editors who'd know where to look? --Killuminator (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Killuminator. First of all, thanks for the fantastic job that you have been doing with that list. I personally am not sure. It seems that Richard's reign ended in September and Henry's began immediately afterwards. I was wondering if the sources list people accepted into the order by only year or does it include the month as well? User:Yomangani would have been able to help but he has not been active since September 2020. You can give it a try and send them a message. You can also contact User:DrKay. He edits pages related to British monarchs and royalty. He could at least lead you to a better resource or to another user. But, remember to keep your message concise. He's not really a fan of reading lengthy passages as far as I know :) Keivan.f^Talk 21:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll contact Kay after I clear more of the backlog. --Killuminator (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Keivan.f, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede66 05:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

BotSentinel report 26 October 2021 on hate account campaign targetting Meghan Markle

I am surprised you find the first (freely downloadable) report that has been written about so broadly a "primary source that should be avoided". You claim primary sources should be avoided unless they are absolutely necessary, but all quotes currently used for those two statements in the article do link directly to the first report, so it appears they all concluded that it was absolutely necessary. I would also like to remind you there is a larger problem linking to articles on USA media websites from other countries, so it's refreshing to have sources that are freely accessible everywhere and I believe this approach should be encouraged by Wikipedians by using such sources wherever relevant on Wikipedia. Jane (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Jane and thank you for your message. Well, apparently BotSentinel has published four reports in total, and I think the previous ones are also available on the web though if we were to list all of them as references it would result in WP:CITATIONOVERKILL. We also tend to prefer secondary sources to primary sources, but, since you mentioned that some American news websites might not be accessible to users from other countries I think it would not be a bad idea to cite the latest report. I’ll restore it now. Keivan.f^Talk 15:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! It's getting harder and harder to find secure permalinks to breaking news items.Jane (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello

also please see latest edits on 3 lebanese clubs and terrible vandalism reverting by registered user, scroll edits for all needed links, some obvious errors, hope world can see and someone stop him. 93.142.147.222 (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Can you perhaps be a little bit more specific? Which 3 Lebanese clubs are you referring to and on which page or pages is the supposed vandalism taking place? Keivan.f^Talk 07:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Members of Bosnia's presidency

This is not a topic where you'd be too familiar I think but it's one where I am. Forgive some language as I'm really angry and don't know who to turn to. I'm starting an assistant teacher position at a university soon, with history subjects specifically. I was about to copy something to make teaching materials about Bosnia's presidency and was shocked to learn that some morons completely purged the page of all content that covers members of the presidency under the first constitution. It's an insanely illiterate approach to the topic and the only article that has these people is one that covers members of the presidency by their length of term. Under the current constitution, there are 3 members from 3 ethnic groups. Under the previous constitution, there were 7 members and at one point even 10 because of a provision for an expanded presidency under wartime conditions. Some uninformed people thought to themselves Oh wow, they changed this institution a bit so we'll pretend the original stuff never existed and unilaterally changed the scope of the article even though the title still implies the removed content should have stayed. I'm mad beyond belief. France has had five republican constitutions but the page on French presidents list ALL OF THEM. The equivalent of what these uninformed people did here would be me removing everyone before Charles de Gaulle on that page because he's the first president uNdEr tHe neW cONstiTUTion. I've looked at revision histories for the stuff I'm venting about and someone had the audacity to make and edit with the explanation We moved this content to this page. I went to that page only to found it's been removed from there too. In other words, it's almost nowhere now. Like ripping a page out of a book. I'm sorry for this long rant but I figure it's not a good idea to go on about this unilaterally but I might have to do it if they force my hand. --Killuminator (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Killuminator. Well, it’s totally natural that you might disagree with such drastic changes. May I know which article exactly you are referring to? If only a small number of users tried to remove content from the page that could be reverted. Alternatively, you can seek consensus again to restore the removed info. Just don’t forget to mention the article cause I’d like to look at its history as well. There might still be a chance for reverting their edits. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 01:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It's this article. Changes were made in 2020. --Killuminator (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'd have to revert it manually and I don't know how. --Killuminator (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Killuminator: Sorry for the delayed response. I was busy with different tasks throughout the week and almost forgot about this discussion. Anyway, I just checked the article and it seems that it was this edit that removed the information you were alluding to. The editor's rationale is not completely clear to me, but he seems to be still active. If I have identified the correct person, let me know so I will take the issue to the article's talk page and tag you as well along with referencing this discussion. He might have simply moved those pieces of information to another article or could have a solid reason. It's better to hear his reasoning first before reverting. I look forward to receiving your response. Keivan.f^Talk 02:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I'm fine with that. I found the change of scope in the article a unilateral and unjustified act. I can't find an article where these removed entries would be and I think that page is their rightful place. Killuminator (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"HM King" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect HM King and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 6#HM King until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Princess Latifa

Regarding your changes to these redirects:

• Princess Latifa
• Latifa Al Maktoum
• Latifa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum

There was a previous discussion concluding that there is a primary topic, namely Latifa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum (born 1985). Would you agree? Tim Smith (talk)

Hello Tim Smith. I redirected them back to their original target, because 1) I wasn't aware that a discussion had taken place, 2) the article on her half-sister with whom she shares the same name was deleted due to copyright infringement, thus, there's again only one primary target. I additionally requested that the page Latifa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum (born 1985) be reverted back to its original title "Latifa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum" as there are no detailed articles on her half-sisters at this point. Hopefully that addresses your concerns. Thanks for your message. Keivan.f^Talk 08:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

That sounds good, but I see that you have now re-redirected them back to the disambiguation page again. The article on her half-sister is back, but I don't see that that makes a difference. The primary topic with respect to usage appears to be Latifa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum (born 1985). All of the hits on the first page of Google results for "Princess Latifa" are for her. Isn't that where the redirects should point? Tim Smith (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I was about to notify you in the morning. Yes, the article on her half-sister has been recreated and I hope it doesn’t get deleted this time because it’s rather tedious to constantly change redirects and related pages. Now it seems that the elder Latifa actually plays an active role in the government of Dubai and is probably more well-known in her native country whereas the younger one is primarily known in the West for her escape attempts and subsequent kidnapping. I think it’s just safe to assume that the younger one could be the primary target, thus, the redirects should point to her page. As for the main titles though, I suggest keeping them the way they are now, because some sort of disambiguation is required. Keivan.f^Talk 06:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

That seems fine. I would be inclined to have the title be Latifa Al Maktoum, as she seems to be far and away the most notable of anyone by that name, going by global coverage. But I don't know all the conventions that might apply to article titles involving royal families. Thanks for looking into it. Tim Smith (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Jubilee Service

Hi Keivan.f! I wanted to ask if you could expand the "Service" section of the Platinum Jubilee National Service of Thanksgiving. You did a great job on A Service of Thanksgiving for the life of The Duke of Edinburgh, especially this edit, so I don't think that anybody else can expand the Jubilee Service better than you. Thanks! :) Peter Ormond 💬 05:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Peter Ormond, and thank you for your message. Actually, I plan to revisit that article some time in the future, but at the moment, since I have a little bit of free time on my hand, my priority is to go through the BBC coverage of the Golden Jubilee in 2002 and see if I can improve articles such as Party at the Palace, etc. Let's see how fast I can finish and then, hopefully with more free time on hand, I'll see what I can do with the article on the thanksgiving service. Regards Keivan.f^Talk 05:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Prince Andrew song

If the song is linked elsewhere please tell us where. You wrote it's linked elsewhere. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri: It's listed in Template:Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal, which links it to dozens of articles. Simultaneously, it's also linked to the article on Andrew's interview, Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal under a section titled "See also". There's no need to create an "in popular culture" section just for one song. There are literally dozens of works released on his family members each year, but we don't list them on their articles. Keivan.f^Talk 16:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Ismail I, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Hope you'd consider the guidelines set by WP:MOSAR, which, whenever possible, recommends using basic as opposed to strict transliteration. 18:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC) GenoV84 (talk)

Refer to Talk:Ismail I#Diacritics. Keivan.f^Talk 18:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh signature.png

The file File:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh signature.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused. Superseded by File:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh signature.svg.

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 15:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

About Draft Pages

Dear author @Keivan.f, I have created two pages that meet the conditions for publication in the English Wikipedia, which is also available in the Turkish Wikipedia. I was excited to see that you are a writer who can understand Turkish and wanted to leave a message on your profile. Can you check the pages I created for the Turkish TV series Gül Masalı and its lead actor Erdem Kaynarca? I hope I'm not bothering you with this message I left on your profile. I wish you good day. Scorpion0321 (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Scorpion0321 and sorry for the delayed reply. Hope you had a great weekend. Well, it seems that the article you created for the actor has already been moved to the main space by a page reviewer. I made some final touches but I recommend that you add a few sentences on the subject. After all, it is a biography and not merely a list of his works. I'm not quite sure if the article on the TV series meets the criteria. Is it a well known TV series in Turkey with a huge audience? The sources appear to be fine, but I would rather make sure that it is deserving of having a page about it. I'll take a look at it and see if it needs final touches. In the meantime, it will be reviewed by one of the draft reviewers. Just wait for the outcome, because there's a chance that it might pass. If not, you can notify me later on and we'll see what can be done with regards to the comments that will be made on the unapproved draft in case it doesn't pass. Have a wonderful day. Regards. Keivan.f^Talk 02:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Beluga whale

Sorry man... I meant to revert the edit before yours. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

UtherSRG, there’s no need to be sorry. Mistakes always happen. I actually figured that’s what you were trying to do after reverting your edit. It appears that my edit was simply in the way. Hopefully the issue has been resolved by now. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 20:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Family name

In Arabic family names are used with the prefix Al. Please do not delete it, Egeymi (talk) 07:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Egeymi, Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is not always the case as far as I can tell. The "Al" (or آل) in Al Saud is not a grammatical article, but a noun that means 'house' or 'family'. So it is rather repetitive to include "Al" while 'house' is already included as an infobox parameter. Keivan.f^Talk 07:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Why do you remove the social media links?

Why do you remove the social media links? Please leave it since its all correct 176.29.101.167 (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wedding dress of Katherine Worsley

The article Wedding dress of Katherine Worsley has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A separate page has been created for this dress, and this is not how the Duchess spells her first name.

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.

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) 09:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to the London Bridge Task Force

Hello! You seem to have an interest in the recent death of Elizabeth II, so I wanted to invite to the WikiProject of Current Events new task force The London Bridge Task Force, which will be working on improving all the articles around the death of Elizabeth II. A task force is similar to a WikiProject, which is where you can communicate with other editors who all have the same goal, which is improving all the articles around a specific topic. I hope you consider joining! Elijahandskip (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Meghan

What you say is true, but the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide and explain information. Describing Meghan as a former senior member of the British Royal family provides more information and more context about who she is and the role she is and is not playing. The other royals you mentioned are not senior members, nor are they senior members who decided to step back. You emphasize how Meghan is a part, but it is actually her decision with Harry to not be a part that is more salient and interesting. 108.6.34.58 (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The Queen Consort

I absolutely agree with you that Camilla's page should be at Queen Consort and mention her as such because that is the title the official website of the royal family uses. cookie monster 755 02:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment: is Archie and Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor a prince and princess now? cookie monster 755 02:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

CookieMonster755, Technically, I would say yes, but we need an official confirmation on whether they are actually going to use those titles. For example, James, Viscount Severn and Lady Louise Windsor are also technically prince and princess, but they do not use their princely titles. Normally when the child is under age the decision is made by their parents (or grandparents, because Charles wants to slim down the monarchy and may take some titles away!). Keivan.f^Talk 02:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You make a correct point. I did update the templates on Archie and Lilibet's pages to reflect that they are legally prince and princess, but don't use the title of prince or princess. cookie monster 755 02:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Catherine, Princess of Wales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Countess of Strathearn.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

interview request

Hi, I'm a reporter at the Wall Street Journal. I'm interested in talking with you about the London Bridge task force for a story I'm working on. Can you send me an email at alyssa.lukpat@wsj.com so we can arrange a time to talk? Many thanks. Reporter wsj (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Prince William's coat of arms

Coats of arms in the British royal family are granted on an individual basis and are not attached to titles or inherited. As far as I know, no warrant has yet been issued granting William new arms, so he should still be using those he used as Duke of Cambridge - apart from the change of coronet, which is automatic. It is probable, but not certain, that his future arms will be identical to the previous PofW arms. Vexald (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Titles & styles

Thank you, for fixing up the titles/styles bit at the BLPs of the Prince & Princess of Wales. I only hope those corrections will remain. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, No problem. Yes, I hope they do remain unchanged. I'm actually tired of the constant back and forth on some of these articles. Keivan.f^Talk 23:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully, after Elizabeth II's funeral, the related-bios & pages, will stabilise. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

HM The Queen Consort

The RM at Talk:Camilla, Queen Consort has ended. The result was that the article about HM The Queen Consort will be titled as Camilla, Queen Consort. cookie monster 755 01:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

CookieMonster755, thanks for notifying me. At least the page will have a title that is not going to be as awkward as the previous one. If in the following months the palace drops the word "Consort" from the title, we can revisit the topic and have the page moved to "Queen Camilla". Keivan.f^Talk 01:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Death of Mahsa Amini on the front page news section

Hello. Please consider casting your vote for or against the nomination of Death of Mahsa Amini to feature on the news section on the front page. You can find the nomination here Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Protests_in_Iran_against_Guidance_Patrol. --Ideophagous (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Notices

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1978 Iranian politics. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Fergie

Lillibet, Will, Bertie etc are pet names used by the Royal Family, and not widely used in WP:RS (in fact, it's probably quite the opposite - I doubt that Sarah is referred to as Fergie by the Royals). Fergie is widely used in WP:RS and in popular culture, to the extent of almost being the subject's WP:COMMONNAME. I'm unconvinced by the reasoning given for your revert. Park3r (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Park3r, There are dozens of people who bear the surname Ferguson and are thus referred to as "Fergie", including Alex Ferguson, yet you don't see that nickname being included in the lede section of their articles. And if you are trying to criticize my comments, then include it in whole. Another person that I mentioned that is widely known by a nickname is Catherine, Princess of Wales, also referred to as Kate. Now you don't see that being included in the lede. In fact there was a discussion on the talk page about it. That's because the subject herself has never used that nickname in any formal capacity, and neither has done Sarah. You don't see it on her social media pages (1, 2), and you don't see it being used on her books or the articles that she has authored (see Sarah, Duchess of York#Bibliography). This is in contrast to Prince Harry, who has used his nickname instead of his actual name, which is Henry, in every possible way. I see no valid reason for including Sarah's nickname in the lede. A brief mention in the early life section is enough. Keivan.f^Talk 04:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion you pointed out was about Kate Middleton, not Fergie. As for Alex Ferguson, the media usually refers to him as "Alex Ferguson", "Sir Alex" etc as often, or more than it refers to him as "Fergie". Wikipedia should reflect the usage of WP:RS and the overwhelming usage of the subject's name is "Fergie".Park3r (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Park3r, I never said that the discussion was about Sarah. I was merely pointing out a discussion on a similar topic about a person that is also known with a nickname. And, no, Alex Ferguson has been known as Fergie occasionally (ever heard of 'Fergie Time'?). And there's no "overwhelming usage" of the nickname Fergie for Sarah. A simple search on Google shows that almost all the headlines either use "Duchess of York" or "Sarah Ferguson" when referring to her. Keivan.f^Talk 06:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of British coronations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TBD.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Elizabeth II for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. John (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Names of consorts

Re [4], I agree with the edit but neither Albert nor Alexandra are listed by their birth names. No-one ever uses those. DrKay (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

DrKay, good point and thanks for correcting me. Maybe I should revert it back to Philip Mountbatten, but in that case shouldn't Camilla be listed as Camilla Parker Bowles? I'm trying to establish some sort of consistency, but at this point it seems rather impossible. Keivan.f^Talk 20:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		COVID-19 Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to COVID-19. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Presidency TIHV

The TIHV said itself that Korur Financi was elected its president in 2020. The Hrant Dink foundation mentioned her presidency since 2009, which was the source I based her presidency. Do know something more?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Question was meant for @Randam, who has a talk page header with a button that leads to your talk page. If you can help, thanks a lot, but I did not want to disturb you.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle, No problem. I figured that an error should have occurred and it seems Randam has corrected the issue with his talk page header. With regards to the matter you were enquiring about, I am not knowledgeable enough to help in this instance. If I somehow end up digging deeper into it I'll let you know about my findings. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 20:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Found it. She was president from 2018 to 2021. Thanks, nice chatting with you. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to The Crown (season 5), please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The Show preview button is right next to the Publish changes button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Alex 21: There was no error. I intended to keep the citations as some people would have asked for it with regards to who actually had written all the episodes, but if it can be removed, fine. It doesn't bother me either way. Keivan.f^Talk 08:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Noted, but you made consecutive edits within the span of two minutes, making it hard for anyone else to edit the article without edit conflicts. Make sure you consider your changes first. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Well, I had issues when it came to submitting my own edits, due to the fact that others were trying to do the same. In any case, the necessary changes have been made now. No need to discuss this any further. Keivan.f^Talk 08:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Nobody else was editing the season article at the same time, you have eight consecutive edits. But glad to know we're on the same page. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Alex 21: I was editing both the article on the TV series and the one on season 5, so FYI, I dealt edit conflicts twice on the main article. And, yes, I made eight consecutive edits. So what? Didn't know that I needed to ask for permission when editing the page. If you are willing to edit an article that is open to everyone else for editing you should expect some errors occasionally. I don't own the article, and neither do you. Keivan.f^Talk 08:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC).

article about Catherine of France, countess of Charolais

Hello good Morning. I would like to consult with other Wikipedians, like you, about an issue on that article. It is that I consider that there are contradictions in the sources regarding his year of birth for this reason;

In the articles of his sister Radegunda, they claims she is born between 1425 and 1428. Of the sources that are provided, the account of his mother's treasurer (first-hand source) that records his birth in August 1428 seems more reliable. if This princess was born on that date, it is impossible for Queen Mary to have another daughter in that year, since the months between January-August and August-December make a pregnancy impossible that would result in an optimal birth for the life. As the treasurer's source only mentions a princess born that month, Catherine had to be born after 1428. She would also be closer in age to her future husband. So, even if you don't want to rule out 1428 as Catherine's birth, you could leave a wider margin like 1428/1431, just like you do with her sister 1425/1428, to be more precise. There are times when it is not necessary to accredit sources to verify a contradiction since the laws of nature, the same then than now, which makes it impossible for both sisters to be born in the same year, without being twins.

@90.94.49.136: Hello and sorry for the delayed response. I haven't been really active in the past two days for some personal reasons. I read the message you left and I should say that the reasons you gave for your conclusion are sound. However, we are always discouraged from WP:OR, and WP:SYNTHESIS specifically. What I suggest you do is to include both dates, preferably the more reasonable one in the article's body or the infobox. Then the other date can be given as a footnote, or simply included in a follow-up sentence when you cite the source and just point out the contradiction. It's simply best to avoid deep analysis, unless this analysis is done in a reliable secondary source (not a blog or personal website). Hopefully that was helpful. I know it is hard to sometimes include what different sources say when you feel personally one is closer to the actual truth, but we have to include all the alternatives for the sake of neutrality and fairness. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 19:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

God of War Ragnarök plot

Please do not fill in the plot for God of War Ragnarök yet, as was discussed in it's talk page. The intention is to create a better gaming experience by stopping spoilery content. While it's inevitable that the plot will eventually be filled, a solid weekend of no plot will really help. The now deleted plot will be re-upuloaded on Monday, the 14th of November. It would be really good if you could help me in this endeavour by requesting a page edit block for the weekend.

Thank you. Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Godofwarfan69420. Just wanted to point out that it wasn't me who filled in the plot. I merely linked some pages, that's it. With regards to the article's protection status, I think it has been semi-protected until 14 November. That should give you enough time to make the necessary edits. Keivan.f^Talk 14:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

oh ok, thanks for the clarification Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dolunay Soysert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Camilla

Howdy, it's so frustrating seeing that Queen Camilla's page is going to be treated differently from the other past & current queens consort. Just because many sources are refusing to correct their current mistakes. Hopefully, the sources will drop using the 'consort' bit, by the time of Charles III's coronation. PS - You'd think the sources, would look up old newsreels & see how Elizabeth II's mother & paternal grandmother were described, during their respective husbands reigns. OK, that's my rant for today. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay. I have seen articles by The Times and The Daily Telegraph that refer to her as Queen Camilla or simply the Queen. I think it is becoming more and more common at the moment, but I still do not suggest that we go ahead with another WP:RM, firstly because the last one was over only a week or two ago, and secondly because the official website of the Royal Family has not dropped the word consort from her title. It's been reported that they plan on doing it before the coronation, but we just have to wait and see. Keivan.f^Talk 19:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it'll all work out. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

House of Windsor

Hi! I rolled back your three edits because we all need to use the talk page section before changing that item again. Please note what is sourced now and what isn't. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: Hi. The article states that Prince Philip was a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, a branch of the House of Oldenburg. I edited the article according to that statement, the info available on the article Mountbatten-Windsor, and the article on Prince Philip, who was the father of the current king and a member of the House of Glücksburg. Keivan.f^Talk 00:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you - I'll look into that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I am very surprised to see now that you ignored the talk page and reverted again. As I'm sure you (actually) know, consensus is not reached through edit reverts and personal opinions in edit summaries but through talk page discussions and reliable sources. Why would an experienced editor like you do something like that? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: I was in a bit of a rush last night, and I simply assumed the matter was settled since the facts are rather obvious. But if you insist on initiating a discussion and seeking consensus first, fine, I will gladly oblige. After all, there's no harm in seeking consensus. Keivan.f^Talk 18:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Good! Just to be clear, I did not start the discussion now. It has been there since September 25. My first input was on October 18, that's a month ago today. There is a total of three sections on that page which pertain to this topic. The first one was started (yes, by me) on September 9. All that added up to my sincere surprise at your action which made me write to you here.

Nothing unsourced in any Wikipedia article is an obvious fact, in my opinion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Elizabeth of the United Kingdom (disambiguation)

The article Elizabeth of the United Kingdom (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:2DABS

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. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

درخواست چک کردن گرامی

سلام. یه زحمت براتون دشاتم. من این متن ها رو با مترجم گوگل ترجمه کردم. میشه لطف کنید و ایرادات احتمالی گرامر انگلیسی رو رفع کنید. برا مقاله انگلیسی علی کریمی هست ...

• او در دوران فوتبال حرفه‌ای ۱۸ سالهٔ خود از سال ۱۳۷۵ تا ۱۳۹۳، سابقهٔ بازی در لیگ‌های ایران، امارات، قطر و آلمان را دارد

During his professional football career, he has played in the Iran Pro League, UAE Pro League, Qatar Stars League and Bundesliga

• در سال 2004 او به عنوان بهترین گلزن جام ملت‌های آسیا شناخته شد و جایزه بهترین بازیکن سال آسیا را نیز در همان سال دریافت کرد

In 2004, he was recognized as the best scorer of the AFC Asian Cup and received the Asian Footballer of the Year award in the same year.

• کریمی در ویدیو معرفی تیم ملی فوتبال ایران در جام جهانی ۲۰۱۸، از سوی فیفا؛ به عنوان «یکی از دو بازیکن برتر تاریخ فوتبال ایران»، معرفی شد.

Karimi in the video introducing Iran's national football team in the 2018 World Cup, by FIFA; He was introduced as "One of the top 2 players of Iran's football history"

• کریمی از محبوب ترین ورزشکاران تاریخ ایران، شناخته می شود. او در آوریل ۲۰۱۵، در نظرسنجی برنامه تلویزیونی نود ، به عنوان محبوب ترین فوتبالیست ایران شناخته شد (از سال ۱۹۹۱ تا ۲۰۱۵). کریمی در شبکه اجتماعی اینستاگرام نیز، با ۱۴.۲ میلیون فالور ( تا نوامبر ۲۰۲۲) به عنوان محبوب ترین ورزشکار ایران شناخته می شود

Karimi is known as one of the most popular athletes in the history of Iran. In April 2015, he was recognized as Iran's most popular football player (from 1991 to 2015) in a poll by Navad television program. Karimi is known as the most popular athlete in Iran with 14.2 million followers (until November 2022) on the Instagram social network.

ممنون میشم لطف کنید و ایردات اگرامر انگلیسی رو برطرف کنید. با تشکر I7-860 (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

درود. اشتباهات کوچکی وجود داشت که برطرف شد. همچنین تعداد فالوورهای اینستاگرام را از ابتدای مقاله حذف کردم، چون که برای سنجش میزان محبوبیت یک شخص ملاک مناسبی نیست. این بخش را می‌توان در قسمت مرتبط با زندگی شخصی گنجاند. مقاله رونالدو و سایر فوتبالیست‌ها را می‌توانید به عنوان الگو بررسی کنید. Keivan.f^Talk 16:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

خیلی لطف کردین. ممنون. لطفا تو همین مقاله انگلیسی علی کریمی قسمت بایرن مونیخ رو هم بررسی کنید برا اشتباه گرامری... چون اونو هم با مترجم گوگل تو مقاله زدم.. ممنون میشم اونو در صورتیکه مشکل گرامری داره برطرف کنید.I7-860 (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

بخش مرتبط با بایرن مونیخ را هم بررسی کردم. چند مشکل ساختاری جزیی داشت که برطرف شد. با احترام Keivan.f^Talk 17:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

خیلی خیلی ممنون. لطف کردین. این متن زیر رو هر چی میزنم ترجمه خوب براش نمیاد میشه زحمت اینم بکشید تا تو مقاله بزارم

قرار گرفتن در تیم منتخب بهترین بازیکنانی که، به صورت آزاد، به بایرن‌مونیخ پیوستند به انتخاب سایت ترنسفرمارکت ‏(از 1998 تا 2017)

بازیکن آزاد هم گویا میشه

Free agent

اینم لطف کنید ببنید به انگلیسی درسته

لوکاس پودولسکی هم‌ بازی علی کریمی در بایرن مونیخ

Lukas Podolski is Ali Karimi's teammate in Bayern Munich

این دو مورد که گفتم رو هنوز تو مقاله نزاشتم. گفتم اول تایید درست بودن گرامر رو از شما بگیرم و بعد بزارم 19:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)I7-860 (talk)

سلام. میشه لطف کنید و این دو مورد بالا رو راهنمایی کنید. با توجه به راهنمایی شما در مورد سبک مقاله رونالدو یه بخشی هم به عنوان

Style of play

به مقاله انگلیسی علی کریمی اضافه کردم. لطفا اونو چک کنید که اشکالات گرامری نداشته باشه.

اینم متن فارسی همون قسمت سبک بازی علی کریمی هست که در زیر می نویسم.

شناخته‌شده‌ترین خصیصه فوتبال علی کریمی، مهارت او در دریبل‌زنی است. ورلد ساکر در سال ۲۰۰۳، او را بازیکنی با «حرکات و کار با توپِ هیپنوتیزم‌کننده» توصیف کرده‌است. مجله کیکر در سال ۲۰۰۴ با یاد کردن از کریمی با عنوان «مارادونا آسیا» در گزارشی می‌نویسد: «او با هر دو پا خوب شوت می‌زند، خیلی سریع تغییر جهت می‌دهد و بازیکنی است که تیم حریف را وادار به سرگیجه می‌کند»

در زمان مربیگری برانکو ایوانکویچ که تیم ملی ایران معمولاً با آرایش ۱-۳-۲-۴ بازی می‌کرد، کریمی به عنوان هافبک تهاجمی بازی می‌کرد

مجله فیفا در شماره آوریل ۲۰۰۶، کریمی را یک بازی‌ساز حرفه‌ای توصیف کرده‌است.

بنا بر نوشته فیفا در سال ۲۰۰۹، «دریبل‌های خیره‌کننده» از ویژگی‌های بازی کریمی است و به خاطر همین به «جادوگر» مشهور شده‌است

ای اف سی در گزارشی در سال ۲۰۱۷، از کریمی با لقب «مارادونای اسیا» یاد کرد و او را به عنوان "یکی از نمادهای تاریخ فوتبال آسیا" معرفی کرد. در ادامه این گزارش، «دریبل های جادویی» و «حرکات غیرقابل پیش بینی» از خصوصیات بازی کریمی ، ذکر شده است.

اینم متن نقل قول مرته ساکر هست

علی کریمی در بازی دوستانه سال ۲۰۰۴ (ایران ۰ − آلمان ۲)، با تکنیکش ما را به سرگیجه انداخته بود.

خاطره مرته ساکر از بازی دوستانه ایران و المان

خیلی ممنون میشم لطف کنید و این موارد رو چک کنید و راهنمایی کنید. من فقط برا مقاله علی کریمی مزاحم شما شدم و در هیچ مقاله دیگری مزاحم شما نخواهم شد.I7-860 (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Keivan.f:I7-860 (talk) 07:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@I7-860: درود. امروز بخش مربوط به سبک بازی را مطالعه کردم و اشتباه خاصی از نظر گرامر و دستور زبان ندیدم. در مورد چک کردن اصطلاحاتی که مرتبط با فوتبال است می‌توانید از کاربرانی که در ویکی‌پروژه فوتبال فعال هستند کمک بگیرید که لینکش را هم اینجا می‌گذارم Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. Keivan.f^Talk 19:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ممنون. یعنی گوگل ترنسلیت اینقدر دقیق ترجمه میکنه.؟

ممنون از لطف و راهنمایی شما. این جمله درست بود که تو زیر میارم

لوکاس پودولسکی هم‌ بازی علی کریمی در بایرن مونیخ

Lukas Podolski is Ali Karimi's teammate in Bayern Munich

میخوام یه نقل از پودولسکی بزارم و زیرش همین جمله رو بزارم که گفتم شما هم چک کنید ببیند انگلیسسش درست باشه I7-860 (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@I7-860: خیر، ترجمه گوگل همیشه دقیق نیست، به همین خاطر بهتر است از کسانی که کاملا با اصطلاحات فوتبال آشنایی دارند کمک بگیرید. در مورد نقل قول، احتیاجی به فعل "است" نیست برای این که پودولسکی و کریمی هم‌اکنون همبازی نیستد. اگر از یکی از الگوهای نقل قول استفاده می‌کنید، اسم گوینده یعنی پودولسکی را نوشته و بعد از ویرگول ارتباطش با کریمی را به طور خلاصه بنویسید (Lukas Podolski, Ali Karimi's teammate in Bayern Munich). من خودم دوباره در آینده به صفحه نگاه می‌کنم تا مطمئن شوم عاری از اشتباهات جزئی است. Keivan.f^Talk 19:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

خیلی ممنون. خیلی لطف کردین. بخش های دیگه مقاله رو هم ارتقا میدم و زحمت چک کردنش با شما. بازم میگم من فقط برا همین مقاله مزاحم شما شدم و در هیچ مقاله دیگه مزاحم نخواهم شد. از اینکه صبوری میکنید و کمک می کنید ممنونم I7-860 (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Elizabeth II into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Camilla, Queen Consort, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BBC Radio 5.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Ebru Özkan moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Ebru Özkan, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jamiebuba (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Your recent editing history at Meghan, Duchess of Sussex‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Markle

No, the version as it was before I edited was added in the past (Bold of BRD). I reverted (R or BRD). It is your responsibility to discuss (D or BRD) and get consensus. You have given no rationale for making an exception for MOS. MOS does not have to state that the lead is an exception. It simply states that after the first mention (regardless of where it is), later mention should only use last name. Sundayclose (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: You said it yourself; the full name was added in the past. Did anyone dispute the previous version? No. And as long as I remember the full name has been there. And MOS is a guideline, not a policy. There are dozens of examples that do not implement these guidelines, including Catherine, Princess of Wales, Angelina Jolie, Johnny Depp, etc. Keivan.f^Talk 18:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Please don't drag out the useless argument that MOS is a guideline not a policy. That's not a justification for ignoring a major guideline without consensus. MOS is widely accepted. We follow guidelines until a consensus to make an exception occurs. When it is challenged (as is the case here), it needs to be justified here and have an exception by consensus. What is your rationale for making an exception to MOS? Sundayclose (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Take it to Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Keivan.f^Talk 18:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you re: Mahmoud Moradkhani

Thank you for your improvements to that article — iFaqeer (talk to or email me) 03:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

"The Queen Consort" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Queen Consort and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § The Queen Consort until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. DrKay (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Please give a rationale for my edits

Why have you deleted my update? Where in Wikipedia rules is this stated that user reviews shall not be included? There are numerous examples on Wikipedia, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Score_(2001_film) Your edits simply imdicate bias. Please explain. Randomacces10101010 (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Randomacces10101010: The article on The Score (2001 film) includes only the score generated by critics' reviews. It states On Rotten Tomatoes the film has a "Certified Fresh" 73% rating based on 128 reviews, with an average rating of 6.5/10. No mention of audience score whatsoever. And this is in line with WP:TVRECEPTION which states: Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes (including its "Audience Says" feature), as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew. Additionally, you altered article titles within different citations, for example changing "Meghan Markle & Prince Harry Address The Racist "Straight Outta Compton" Headline" to Meghan Markle & Prince Harry Address The "Straight Outta Compton" Headline implies racism however this is not evidenced 1. This is simply unacceptable, as you're changing the source based on your own personal opinion. Keivan.f^Talk 23:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

چک گرامر مقاله علی کریمی

با سلام. یه زحمت براتون داشتم. تو مقاله انگلیسی علی کریمی ؛ بخش

Personal life

رو لطفا چک کنید. به این قسمت دیدار کریمی با ريیس جمهور آلمان رو اضافه کردم. لطفا چک کنید گرامرش مشکل نداشته باشه. با تشکر I7-860 (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

---

با سلام مجدد. گویا یکی از دوستان انگلیسی زبان اصلاح زد. .... اگه بازم سوالی بود مزاحمتون میشمI7-860 (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

"Timeline of the death and state funeral of Elizabeth II" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Timeline of the death and state funeral of Elizabeth II and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Timeline of the death and state funeral of Elizabeth II until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 12.206.84.79 (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)