User talk:Keivan.f

This is Keivan.f's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 31 days

Welcome to Keivan.f's talk page. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article's talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or let me know where specifically you'd prefer the reply. I will try to WP:PING you as well. Conversely if you are replying to something I've said on another talk page, reply there and include {{ping|Keivan.f}} to alert me.

Please don't template me! Everybody makes mistakes, and this user finds user warning templates impersonal and disrespectful. If there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words.

It is 5:42 PM where this user lives. ^(Purge)

Lead

@Keivan.f The lead for Catherine's article can be definitely improved and it's significant that we expand it and try to summarise it in the best possible manner. Looking forward to your response. It would be greatly appreciated to know your opinion. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is concerning the recent comment on the article's talk page I must say that I side with the user who opposed the inclusion of any info about the photoshop fiasco. The whole thing was a storm in a tea cup. A sentence can be added on her health issues which I attempted to do in the past but it was reverted so I'm not gonna bother right now. You can work on the lede first on your sandbox and then ask for opinions on the talk page (or from peers) and then hopefully implement some changes. Keivan.f^Talk 04:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2024/09/24/catherine-princess-of-wales-plans-christmas-carol-concert/

@Keivan.f Will it be too early to include this information in Catherine's article? Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f Furthermore, both The Daily Telegraph and The Times have reported having noticed the Princess of Wales' recent Early Years meeting with the former also having mentioned this recent meeting (Catherine's second) regarding this year's Carols concert. However, why cannot I find her name in the Court Circular that you will find on the web? Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant info is covered under "Community causes" but if what you're alluding to is updating references I would wait until the event has taken place. Keivan.f^Talk 03:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f Why cannot I find the two entries regarding Catherine at the Court Circular website even though the Telegraph could access both and the Times the one before (not this recent one)? Do you also face a similar issue? Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the Court Circular is updated a day after an engagement has taken place. At the moment I can see the entry for her engagement on September 17. Here you have to select the name of the specific member on whom you want to find entries. Keivan.f^Talk 05:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f How could The Daily Telegraph access the entry in the Court Circular if it is yet to be updated with the engagement undertaken by her on 24 September, that is, yesterday. Did you read the article (link above)? They accessed the entry pertaining to yesterday's engagement-“The Princess of Wales, Joint Patron, the Royal Foundation of The Prince and Princess of Wales, this morning held a meeting at Windsor Castle.”. Looking forward to your response. Regards MSincccc (talk) 07:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Court Circular is published in select British newspapers and on the Royal Family's website. The information goes from the offices directly to the newspapers. Keivan.f^Talk 12:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f Your recent comment has been replied to on the talk page Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales. Looking forward to knowing your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A response to you-Consensus ≠ "all". Wikipedia policy makes this clear. And journalists need not be in someone's head to assess a situation as a whole, given obvious pressures and the basics of public relations. Looking forward to your response to the above at the appropriate talk page. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to reply to at this moment unless the other side stops rehashing the same things and actually comes up with some new arguments. Keivan.f^Talk 19:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1]
[2]

Can the above information be added to Catherine's article? Will it be considered encyclopaedic or notable? ...her first appearance since announcing the completion of her cancer treatment...

@Keivan.f Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't want to create a diary of engagements. She said she finished her treatment and would gradually return to making more appearances and that is already covered in the appropriate section. The readers can easily conclude that's what she's doing without us spoon feeding them and listing every single appearance. Keivan.f^Talk 14:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f In case another editor adds this info (and upon being reverted, starts a discussion on the talk page), how would you respond?

You:As said above

BUT THEN,

Others might argue that the appearance is notable and the current wording goes like:

She continued to make occasional appearances over the following months amidst her ongoing cancer treatment.

But her chemotherapy treatment has concluded, as her video message goes. Looking forward to your response to the above. MSincccc (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond to potential questions and discussions about this matter AFTER somebody makes an attempt to insert this info into the page. We don't need to sit around and hypothesize about potential future edits.

Many patients finish their cancer treatment and go back to their lives. We don't need to list every single appearance of hers to make a point. It's trivial and unencyclopedic and something you would fine on a fan page not an article. Keivan.f^Talk 17:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[3]

[4]

@Keivan.f Well can this information be used in the article? (I suppose) It is noteworthy. Looking forward to your response soon. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, given that it was her first in person public engagement after finishing her treatment then I suppose it's noteworthy and can be briefly mentioned. Keivan.f^Talk 20:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f Well, since Internet Archive has been hacked and its services(like the Wayback Machine) cease to work at present, could you please suggest any alternative websites to create an archive link? Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WEBARCHIVES for a list of archive services. Keivan.f^Talk 03:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f Thanks for the above response. By the way, are you able to you use the Wayback Machine at present? Looking forward to knowing your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No the website appears to be down. Keivan.f^Talk 06:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon your previous advice, I had added information regarding her visit alongside Prince William to meet the families of the victims of the 2024 Southport stabbing. Now, despite being aware of the fact that Wikipedia is not a newspaper and that recording each and every one of her appearances is not encyclopedic, I would still like to know your opinion as to whether her appearance tomorrow, on Remembrance Sunday, should be mentioned in the article. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it would be trivial. She has made multiple appearances throughout the year and already had an in-person engagement post chemo. We don't need to create a diary of appearances here. Keivan.f^Talk 22:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Keivan.f. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Mlody1312 (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last editing on Tuvana Türkay

Hello there you got message for you. Since I edit last edit it was me. Since she passed away on finale season on Kudüs Fatihi Selahaddin Eyyubi, i already added 2024 year 77.77.219.127 (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titles and linking

@Keivan.f Well, the recent revision made to the article William, Prince of Wales (which I reverted) was perfectly fine except for that the editor also made another change-including the "King" within the blue link. Now while that is the case with the late Queen as well, there has been a considerable amount of ambiguity regarding the same. Say for instance, take a look at this discussion or this one (at your convenience).

So, I just wanted your opinion on this because, as active editors, we cannot just use different forms; sometimes Queen Elizabeth II, the other times Queen Elizabeth II. Hence, looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The linking format for those names needs to be consistent. The rest of the article has the name of his father and grandmother linked as King Charles III and Queen Elizabeth II, respectively. Makes no sense to have Charles' name linked in an entirely different manner in the opening sentence. Keivan.f^Talk 14:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response @Keivan.f. A few note queries.

Based on the above, the style King Charles III rather than King Charles III should be used in Victoria Starmer's article where there has been a long discussion regarding the same. Right?
Also, should the reception of the documentary Prince William: We Can End Homelessness' be covered in the Royal Foundation's article?

Looking forward to your responses to the above. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No two articles are bound to follow the same style. As long as there's consistency in Starmer's article in terms of how the names of monarchs have been linked there is no need to change anything.

You can add a sentence or two but I would not recommend writing two paragraphs on it unless the documentary had its own separate page (which at the moment it does not). Keivan.f^Talk 15:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wishes

@Keivan.f Just wanted to wish you "Happy Halloween". Looking forward to potential future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSincccc: Thanks and happy belated Halloween to you too. Hope you had a good time. Keivan.f^Talk 19:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of titles Lord of Hailes and Lady Hailes

Greetings, I note your comment that the above titles for married couple Sam Malin and Irène Major are subject to dispute.

May I ask why?

S. Malin of Hailes is recorded as the holder for the baronial title Hailes in the Registry of Scots Nobility: https://www.registryofscotsnobility.com/baronage/

There is plenty of press giving notability to the title:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/parenting/meet-lady-manor-posed-playboy-four-months-having-eighth-child/ https://www.thesteepletimes.com/the-roll-call/sam-malin-and-irene-major-aka-lord-and-lady-hailes/ https://www.mammypi.com/sam-malin-irene-major-ingress-abbey/ https://www.camerounweb.com/CameroonHomePage/entertainment/Discover-the-fabulously-wealthy-life-of-Irene-Major-324282 https://www.iol.co.za/weekend-argus/entertainment/tv-family-aims-for-royal-bible-7541582 https://www.londonmasons.org.uk/news/83/shoreditch-college-lodge-no-6766-family-fun-day https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9475201/Lady-Hailes-Ingress-Abbey-41-Playboy-cover-star-4-months-welcoming-eighth-child.html https://www.pressreader.com/uk/scottish-daily-mail/20170127/282114931293186?srsltid=AfmBOorU_-uGBE7eT_mYvD4qgu3TJFvnxDZLFMrmubrPGtKJ2e5Y8Ljo Kellycrak88 (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Unfortunately, I don't think any of the sources above (with the exception of Telegraph) count as reliable per WP:RSP. I also noticed that you have had similar troubles trying to insert a title on Sam Malin's page and that action was also disputed by an admin. I have no strong feelings with regards to the material covered on either of those pages as long as they are backed by high quality sources. At the moment I'm keeping an eye on both pages to see if any consensus develops. Keivan.f^Talk 06:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created the Sam Malin page in the first instance with the title but the title was stripped by that admin recently. That admin has given no reason for their disruptive edits and when I politely ask for a reason they deletes my comments and ignore me, they unfortunately have a personal bias considering previous engagements with other editors on the same subject matter. It's unfortunate that admins are not neutral. Kellycrak88 (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no objection to the title being on the Irene Major page referencing the Telegraph where the admin left the title for the wife (but not the husband's page) without providing me a reason — can you please kindly revert back your changes to the page? Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If by reverting back you mean putting back tons of unsourced info back on the page I'm afraid I'm not able to do that. If you're specifically referring to the matter involving the title, I would rather resolve the issue on the husband's page first. Technically she derives the title from her husband and to have it in her page while omitting it from her husband's page would be contradictory and only confuses the readers. If you and the admin cannot resolve it between yourselves there are always ways to get input from third parties; WP:3O, WP:RfC, etc. Keivan.f^Talk 16:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]