User talk:Keivan.f/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

"Moumita Debnath" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Moumita Debnath has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 3 § Moumita Debnath until a consensus is reached. The AP (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 05:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Opinion

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

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

Charles III

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

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

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

Invitation to discussion

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

Points for discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• [1]
• [2]

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

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

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

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

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

References

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex

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

• Link-[3]

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification

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

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

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

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

Books

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

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

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

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

• As of 2018, Coach Core has had over 400 apprentices and graduates across 10 locations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could you please assist me in addressing the following suggestions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New message from Rexophile

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

Invitation to discussion

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

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

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

New message from Rexophile

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

DYK for Endgame (Scobie book)

On 21 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Endgame (Scobie book), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Dutch edition of Endgame: Inside the Royal Family and the Monarchy's Fight for Survival was recalled? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Endgame (Scobie book). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Endgame (Scobie book)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

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

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

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

Good topic

• William, Prince of Wales
• Catherine, Princess of Wales
• Prince George of Wales
• Princess Charlotte of Wales (born 2015)
• Earthshot Prize
• Royal Foundation

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

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

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

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

Page split Burgundy

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

GAN

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

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

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

[4]

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

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

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

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

Nomination of Kategate for deletion

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

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

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

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

You've got a barnstar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Easter!

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

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

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