User talk:Keivan.f

It is 12:13 AM where this user lives. ⁽⁾

A clarification

I recently reverted an edit at William, Prince of Wales. Another editor suggests here that I undo that revert, although I do not think there is any ambiguity. I would appreciate your thoughts. Best, MSincccc (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Overall his argument is not meritless and he is an experienced user. I see no harm in implementing it. Keivan.f^Talk 20:56, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I've started this years big tome! No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@No Swan So Fine Thanks for this new creation. I'm also keeping an eye on this news. It's slated for next year, and features the tapes Diana recorded in full as opposed to 2004's Princess Diana: The Secret Tapes. That's potentially two articles that can be developed (the 2004 one and the 2027 one). Keivan.f^Talk 22:01, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@No Swan So Fine and Keivan, it's sad that another user has nominated the article for deletion while referring to it "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content..." As far as attention is concerned, the article happens to have received coverage in the news weeks before it turns up in the stands. Best, MSincccc (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited TRT Spor, a link pointing to the disambiguation page HD was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Any thoughts on which date is best suited for its Main Page appearance? I would also appreciate it if you could take a look at the blurb. Thanks, MSincccc (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I would personally prefer January 9, 2027. People usually tend to have the biographies/pages they have worked on displayed on the main page on the subject's birthday. I'll have a look at the blurb as well. Keivan.f^Talk 17:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Just following up on this when you have a moment. Thanks again, MSincccc (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Althorp info

I noticed that the information about Althorp was re-added when I added the material about the payment. I'm not sure how that happened, as I didn't put it back in and didn't realise it had been removed until I published my other edit. I just wanted to make clear that I wasn't trying to start an edit dispute. I agree with your point that the Althorp detail isn't relevant, and I didn't really think about that at the time it just seemed to be significant enough as it was being widely reported. ItsShandog (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@ItsShandog Don't worry about it; it usually happens if you have the page in edit mode and somebody else edits it before you do, and because the version in front of you contains the removed portion it gets added back. With regards to the info itself, I do not strongly oppose to its inclusion but we had a discussion on the article talk page about a year or two ago where some people complained about the article's length so we had to do a bit of trimming. I'm just trying to avoid that same issue again. Keivan.f^Talk 13:57, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. That makes sense, and I thought that was probably the case. As you say, it will become an issue if we start adding every small detail, especially as more events will need to be covered over time. I do wonder how we'll keep the length under control, given that there is already a separate page for Megxit. Maybe, eventually, other parts of the article will need to be split off. The privacy and media sections could become a page of their own at some point, as there have been so many legal matters to cover. ItsShandog (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@ItsShandog Given the fact that they are so litigious, that is definitely a possibility we might consider at some point. We could combine their legal cases into one page; after all we have a page covering their overseas tours, so might as well dedicate one to their lawsuits. I would wait at the moment though, because after his recent defeat against the Mail I don't think anybody sees another lawsuit on the horizon unless something extraordinary happens. Keivan.f^Talk 16:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Use edit summaries

I saw that unfortunately you often edit without using an edit summary. Under 15% so far have implemented any at all, nowhere near enough. This low percentage at best is negligent. You honestly should use edit summaries as often as possible. Doing so makes it easier to understand your intentions when changing pages, whether the page is big or small. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:28, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: I usually provide edit summaries when an explanation is necessary. Removing the names of non-notable relatives from the infobox of a subject is not something that anyone has ever opposed to, but as I explained in my two edit summaries just now, per Template:Infobox person/doc: Names of parents; include only if they are independently notable or particularly relevant. The individuals whose names you just tried to add back are not notable and we don't have any articles on any of them. Keivan.f^Talk 15:00, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

No matter what change is being made, don't assume others can read your mind when making edits, therefore it's better to always use edits summaries going forward. It comes off as lazy to treat any situations as not a place where they would be required. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:56, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The recent revision

Any thoughts on the latest revision made to Prince William's article? WP:MDPI says Publications in MDPI journals are considered questionable. Editors have raised concerns about the robustness of MDPI's peer review process and their lack of selectivity in what they publish. Best, MSincccc (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I would remove the newly added part. The sourcing makes it unfit to stay in a good or featured article. Keivan.f^Talk 16:34, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Diana bulimia

Why would you delete the entire section on bulimia on Dianas page. That was a significant part of her life that people need to know about. The sources were all correct and so the description you gave ob why you removed it makes no sense. Bollywood70s (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Take it to the article talk page. Any major change that is disputed by two users or more needs to be properly discussed. Keivan.f^Talk 13:04, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Update

@Keivan.f Could an editor please update the infobox image of Shivangi Joshi to the more recent image:

File:Shivangi Joshi at an event (cropped).jpg

The current image could be replaced with this newer file if it meets Wikipedia's image and licensing requirements. Thank you. ~2026-48108-09 (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Done. Keivan.f^Talk 16:56, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Norwegian royal family

Can you also remove princesses Ragnhild and Astrid from the family tree on that page? Harald and Sonja are now the most recent common ancestor for the Norwegian royal family so Olav's generation and the collaterals in Harald's generation are not needed. I've done something similar on the family tree for the Swedish royal family but I'm not too happy with how it turned out so if it's not too much of a bother I'd like some scrutiny there too. Bless Killuminator (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

@Killuminator Hello. The only reason that I have kept Astrid's name is that she just passed away, so readers that are searching for her name are likely to look up the article on the Norwegian royal family to figure out what her relationship to the current monarch was. I think we can give it a little bit of time before removing her and her sister and parents' names. I had a look at the Swedish royal family tree as well. It looks pretty good, but I would also advocate for adding the name of the current king's grandfather and predecessor because the current family tree does not really show how he's related to the previous monarch. I'll make that change shortly. Keivan.f^Talk 21:12, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you and that's a good point about recency bias. Killuminator (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

While the topic is fresh, do you think the Spanish and British family trees are a bit cluttered? A lot of people with no royal titles, the current king of Spain is in the bottom right corner of his family tree while the British one suffers from concept creep. Killuminator (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

@Killuminator I'm actually working on both of those right now :) Keivan.f^Talk 21:33, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the tremendous effort. Do you have any ideas for the Imperial House of Japan? I think the family tree is too cluttered with dead people and princesses who married out of the family. Or should we wait longer and keep some of the dead relatives in place until it's time to shave off their generation entirely? I think the crosses for dead people feel out of place for a nominally Shinto family and think we should use red and green frames like elsewhere but with dead people also being displayed in italics to accommodate vision problems. Killuminator (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I can work on it, especially with regards to redesigning the frames and removing the crosses, but this will probably have to wait until next week because I'm preoccupied with a bunch of other stuff. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 05:13, 16 September 2026 (UTC)