User talk:Keivan.f

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to my talk page. Click here to leave me a message.

If I have left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I am watching it.

If you leave a message here I will usually reply here, so please click the 'watch' tab at the top of your page in order to add my talk page to your watchlist.




Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (Keivan.f) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! bodnotbod (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to British Royal Family. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. bodnotbod (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales[edit]

...was styled, after her divorce, like a divorced peeress – [1] DBD 14:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"The" before Prince or Princess[edit]

Hi, I saw your edit at Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, and I wondered was it correct. I think Catherine would only be "The Princess William" if her husband were "The Prince William" (leaving aside his Duke of Cambridge title). And I think he'll only become "The Prince William" when Charles becomes King. I've left a query at the article's talk page. Thanks. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Angels in Abrahamic Religions[edit]

So, why did you remove the italics again? Or add them, in the case of Michael and Gabriel? Are you suggesting that they are not "recognized by all denominations."? StAnselm (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

EIIR infobox[edit]

Please stop reverting at Elizabeth II. There was a long-standing consensus version for that infobox section that you overrode a month ago without a new consensus and are trying to impose again over a subsequent change. I am almost finished putting together something at Talk:Elizabeth II. You should undo your last revert; but, at least please discuss the change you want to make at the talk page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Your edit to the infobox was correct, Keivan. Except that you should've placed it below the image. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OK! I think that's rightKeivan.fTalk 09:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe you've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that, when your edit is quickly reverted, you should be seeking a consensus for your change at the article's associated talk page; you saw that only just a few days ago when you tried to alter the infobox at Elizabeth II. The infobox you are now trying to replace at List of titles and honours of Charles, Prince of Wales has been in place since November of 2008; consensus by silence is obviously well established. Please take the matter to the talk page, thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Fermentation Family. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. @-Kosh► Talk to the VorlonsMoon Base Alpha-@ 20:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Reverter's note: the "Gook" part was removed. "Gook" is a slur to Asians, I hardly think that's the correct last name for him, given that.

@-Kosh► Talk to the VorlonsMoon Base Alpha-@ 20:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about you...[edit]

...but I'm pretty sure the Duke of Cambridge is a child of the heir apparent. DBD 15:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries. We just need to find a capable artist who would create new versions... DBD 16:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Corbin Bleu[edit]

I can't help but notice your sudden interest in Corbin Bleu, which seems completely different from your normal field of interest. We have a problem with a banned Farsi-speaking editor that occasionally contacts people and attempts to get them to edit Corbin Bleu related articles on his behalf. He is a banned editor, and no editor should edit on his behalf. Has he contacted you?—Kww(talk) 12:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know his real life identity. We primarily deal with him under his Chace Watson account, but he has falsely claimed to be dozens of people, include me. What prompted your sudden interest in Corbin Bleu?—Kww(talk) 17:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Damon Salvatore Page[edit]

I dont know what gave the impression but I haven't made the current Damon Salvatore page. Yes I made it a long time ago but that was deleted by a moderator so i never tried to get into it again. Nasirakd (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It was JAY008 Nasirakd (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


Why did you revert my edits? It is not necessary to specify that their occupation is the Prince or Princess of Japan. This is not cited on other royal articles of other nations. Furthermore, both the infobox and article already make the statement perfectly clear. These people do not have occupations, they are born into royalty. Dasani 03:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Princess Takamado[edit]

Hello! A widow is only called dowager if the new holder of the title is married. For example, if the Duke of X dies and his successor is unmarried or he has no successor at all, then his wife remains Duchess of X. Anyway, having a succession box makes no sense if there is no succession, don't you think? If a person is the first and so far only holder of the title, there is no need for a succession box. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again! When the subject of the article is a consort, the parameters 'predecessor' and 'successor' are not used. Infoboxes are supposed to contain essential information only and when it comes to consorts, that's hardly essential. I think there is a manual of some sorts somewhere. I'll look it up if you wish. Surtsicna (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think other articles are fine. If you encounter one that's not, feel free to fix it :) Surtsicna (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Keivan.f. You have new messages at Chip123456's talk page.
Message added 16:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you. Chip123456 (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012[edit]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Shigeko Higashikuni. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --DAJF (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't an unsourced edit. I just added her Royal name in Japanese and of course her full name. Keivan.fTalk 05:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, but you'll need to include a source for any claimed religious affiliation. --DAJF (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, of course but for example about her title or royal name there are enough sources in the article. Keivan.fTalk 05:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Lady Ogilvy[edit]

Hi, re this undo, this is a title assigned to a royal, this is Her Higness' official title making it royal. See her official title on the title and styles section of her article. I didn't want to undo your undo as I thought it would be better to come to a mutual agreement! Cheers--Chip123456 (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry charts[edit]

Hello! The ancestry of the Empress of Japan is nothing but trivia. You will find no reliable source mentioning her mother's father's mother or any great-grandparent whatsoever. The Queen of Spain's ancestry is notable, however, as she was not a commoner before marriage but a princess of Greece and princess of Denmark. There are no ancestry sections in articles about other former-commoner-consorts (and if there are, there shouldn't be); see, for example, the articles about the Queen of Sweden and the Queen of Norway. Surtsicna (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, this is true for Japanese princesses by marriage as well. Surtsicna (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand you. About Michiko you were right, but about Masako you are wrong. Firstly, her ancestry isn't trivial secondly Masako is a daughter of a famous diplomat and she comes from a notable family. Keivan.fTalk 12:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The Crown Princess's father is notable, of course, and he is mentioned in the article. His father's mother, however, is not (just an example). There is no reason to have the ahnentafel just to show her relationship to her father, who is already mentioned several times in the article. Besides, such unsourced and contentious information must not be inserted into the article about a living person per WP:BLP. Please don't revert anymore; if you believe the ancestry chart is useful for some reason, find reliable sources and we will discuss it. Surtsicna (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
As for the ancestries, I hope you understand my point. If their ancestries were significant in any aspect, I wouldn't oppose including the ahnentafels. However, they did not become what they are due to their ancestries; the fact that the Crown Princess's mother's father's mother was a woman named Yoneko is not relevant to any aspect of her life. Wikipedia is not a geneaological database. Surtsicna (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I must tell you I was under impression that you were French. I do not know why. I had no idea Keivan was a Muslim name. What language does it come from? Surtsicna (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I was asking because I am Muslim too and I had never heard of it before. I like it nevertheless :) Surtsicna (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Masako Sen[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Masako Sen has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Photo of Duke & Duchess of Cambridge[edit]

Hi Keivan,

You took a good photo of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, but unfortunately it was added to an inappropriate part of the article - ideally we should have had a picture of the chateau at that place as that would link into the section.

Good luck with your photography - why don't you look at articles connected with the area where you live - some are probably lacking good photographs - in that way you can make a real contribution to Wikipeadia.

Best wishes Martinvl (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

OK! You are right. :) Keivan.fTalk 15:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Date format[edit]

Hi! I saw this edit of yours. I restored the original date format. See WP:DATE. Please do not change the date format. If you have changed the format of other articles without checking the original format, please check it and undo your changes if necessary. Please remember, most of the Japan-related articles use the mdy format. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well! I don't understand why the Japan-related articles use the mdy format but I think you are right.Keivan.fTalk 15:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


Until Princess Yoko dies, pictures of her are replaceable. There are probably thousands of private snapshots. You could fly to Japan and take one yourself if you so chose. NFCC#1 doesn't mean that you have a replacement handy, it means that one could be made.—Kww(talk) 14:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Firuze / Hümeyra[edit]

Selam Keivan,

Only in the last episode she appeared, it was mentioned that her real name is "Hümeyra". During all the episodes she was called Firuze. If you would ask people who follow the series, more than 90% will not remember the real name. Several Women in the Harem changed their name, Aleksandra/Hürrem being the most prominent one. So i don't think it is necessary to mention this name here. Arved (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I also checked Turkish Wikipedia and I saw that that name was written in her roles. But if it isn't really necessary, you can remove that name. Keivan.fTalk 08:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Muhteşem Yüzyıl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sultana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


Is there an explanation for the template changes? removing the steps? (Monkelese (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC))

Those sections should include family members, not stepfamily members. Keivan.fTalk 17:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, I must say that I removed the steps from all those templates. (Templates of Diana, Camilla and William) Keivan.fTalk 17:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, just wondering (Monkelese (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Farsi help needed[edit]

Hello Keivan.f, I'm contacting you because we need some Farsi translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on fa.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Farsi Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Of course I will be really happy if I help you with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on fa.wikipedia and also your personal message. I also should say that I'm sorry for answering after a week, but tell me every time you want for helping you in Persian translating.Keivan.fTalk 14:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey Keivan, thanks for getting in touch. First priority is making a page on that describes the VisualEditor, so interested users can find out more about it. You could translate this page: [VE Portal (or a shorter version, whatever you have time for), and we could copy it over to This would also give Farsi wikipedians a place to leave comments and bug reports. Let me know what you have time to do, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mahidevran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spring (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


hi there, thank you for your message. No I am sorry, that is all I have. Good luck with finding more information about the painting. Gryffindor (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hürrem and Mahidevran[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Keivan.f. You have new messages at Nedim Ardoğa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced personal info[edit]

Hi Keivan.f, note that I partially reverted your edits at Nur Fettahoğlu as some of the personal info (including spouse names, marriage dates and parent names) you added was not supported by sourced article content. In addition to the BLP issues, the instructions at Template:Infobox person note that height should only be included if the individual is noted for their height or if it is particularly relevant (e.g. for sports figures or models). The names of family members are generally only included if they are independently notable (per WP:BLPNAME). --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not better for me to "to search about her in internet", it's better (and policy) for you to include your sources when you add the material. If the Facebook page confirms the details of her second marriage, then include the source when adding the material. You also added the name and marriage dates of her first marriage, this requires a source as well. The Turkish wikipedia entry is irrelevant as wikis are not reliable sources, and the information there is equally unsourced. The onus is on the individual adding or restoring content to verify the content, so please ensure you include a citation for each of the claims being made. As the infobox is supposed to be a summary of article content, it would be beneficial if the material is added as prose to the article (with the relevant citation), then added to the infobox if relevant. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Mahidevran's photo[edit]

Stop it! If there is a conflict, first before you talk. Belongs to you, not any opinion on discussion [2]! Next time, I will report to Administrator your vandalic edits other languages! Maurice07 (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Aisha move[edit]

I was coming here to tell you how to request a move, but I see you already know how. I've reverted you here. It's an article with a number of editors and any move should be discussed. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Gerald Shields leading the masses to improve Wikimedia one cosmetically fashionable photograph at a time. North Korean Fashion Watch Barnstar
Gerald Shields, founder of the North Korean Fashion Watch, awards you the North Korean Fashion Watch Barnstar for your continuing efforts to add reliable and poignant discussions about North Korean topics, such as Ri Sol-ju. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Keivan.f. You have new messages at Talk:Raziye Sultan#Raziye's mother.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposed deletion of Fatma Sultan (daughter of Suleiman I)[edit]

Hello, Keivan.f. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Fatma Sultan (daughter of Suleiman I), for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Fatma Sultan (daughter of Suleiman I) to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Muhteşem Yüzyıl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sultana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


I wanted to let you know that your signature violates WP's signature policy because it has markup that enlarges the text. This is what your sig would look like without that markup:


Regards, --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ice Bucket Challenge[edit]

Hi Keivan, please note that the humor thread on the AfD is hatted and closed, so please do not add to it futher. The page is for AfD discussions. If you have any other off-topic comment, please place them on user Talk pages. It's not fair to others who have the AfD on their Watch Lists to deal with these off-topic comments any further. Thanks very much! Softlavender (talk) 09:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Sorry, you're right. ;) Keivan.fTalk 09:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Roxelana/Hurrem Sultana[edit]

If you wish to move the article, start a new move discussion. The most recent move discussion was opposed to a move, so that is the prevailing consensus. If you wish to check to see if consensus has changed, start a new discussion. --Jayron32 19:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mihrişah Valide Sultan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Consort. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Keivan.f. You have new messages at Nedim Ardoğa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Hello, and thank you for all the good work you are doing!

When making drastic changes however, such as removing relevant coats of arms that have been there for years from the templates of royal families, or such as applying your own name formats to them, you should be more careful to have consensus with you. That is normally done by starting a discussion to which any and all interested editors may contrubute, best done on an article's talk page.

On the subject of royalty, just as an example, it is not WP policy that a few select royalty editors, with whom you might communicate exclusively, decide any- and everything that goes into or out of those articles. All editors have a right to be heard and to contribute as well as they can, in the same way that you or I do. If you continue to do things your own way, and the results are drastic changes to Wikipedia's contents, you'll find yourself at odds with other editors who may feel your good faith actions are offensive and destructive, not to say vandalism (yet). That will then lead to disagreeble situations that nobody will enjoy.

WP:Bold is not meant to encourage editors to get themselves in trouble by habitually appearing headstrong and inconsiderate.

Keep up the good work, but please be a bit more considerate and careful! Discuss openly before you remodel extensively! Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"Headstrong and inconsiderate"? "Offensive and destructive"? "Vandalism"? Whooaaah. Did two edits, easily undone with a single revert, really warrant such strong words? And "drastic changes"! Really? A drastic change would be translating the template into Thai, not this. Nobody appreciates condescending lectures on her or his talk page, especially not over something blown out of proportion. I believe you've been told that when you left a similar message on another user's talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You have either misread what I wrote or else you are just trying to pick another fight with me again. There is no personal attack here. I'm trying to tell this young and enthusiastic user to be more careful lest he be misunderstood as a problem user, and to use the talk pages of involved articles to avoid such problems, which I believe you have been told many times. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear SergeWoodzing, I understood what you said, but what about you? Didn't you just change the names of Swedish royals to the format you like and revert my edits? I didn't find any discussion about this. Also what was the purpose of those images that were in royal families' templates? Of course if anyone feels my edits are offensive and destructive, s/he can discuss it with me. And about the infobox of Carl Gustaf, I should say that I changed the name formats, for example I changed Prince Carl Philip to Prince Carl Philip, Duke of X, because the children of sovereigns and consorts are mentioned by their titles in their parents' infoboxes. Take a look at George VI's infobox. Her second daughter's name is written like this: Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon not just Princess Margaret. And also we are friends here, and there's no personal attacking as you said. Keivan.fTalk 19:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I have been told that. By you. Who else on Wikipedia enjoys lecturing others more than writing articles? Oh, good thing you said there was no personal attack here, because the words "headstrong and inconsiderate" and "offensive and destructive" were quite troubling. Allow me to remind you of that the next time you try to lecture me about my tone or something similarly trivial. Wikipedia needs "young and enthusiastic" users to do exactly what Keivan.f is doing - contribute, do whatever they believe will improve an article, and they do not need to seek anyone's permission or blessing beforehand. Surtsicna (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Wow, thanks. ;) Keivan.fTalk 21:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"Who else on Wikipedia enjoys lecturing others more than writing articles?" ~ gross exaggerations, overly familiar insults and personal attacks like that are what you get if/when you ever disagree with some editors. Best of luck to you, Keivan.f, I mean that. I've seen how you in fact do seem to feel you need to "seek ... permission or blessing beforehand", and that's very good, but all I'm saying is: do it on the talk pages, not in messages to other users. Just my advice, take it or leave it. And you'll also see that I in fact do use the talk pages of articles as a basic rule whenever any reverting is done. That's what we're supposed to do, no matter what you see some other editors doing. Try to forget all the nasty animosity that was created here. That was really not my intention. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

OK! The result of your statements is this: please discuss on talk pages and share your opinions with others. And I forgot all the nasty animosity that was created here. ;) Keivan.fTalk 12:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Bravo! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, as you appear to have done by removing the images from over 50 royal family templates, without edit summaries, after a 'slow burn edit war' at Template:British Royal Family where you were advocating that such an image be kept Reventtalk 09:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

He/She should be asked why he is reverting so many approved articles and erasing info without explanation. (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Adding unnecessary photos that have no purpose is not a precious information. Stop adding pictures to the articles of Ottoman consorts with explanation like this: Murad III, son of Nurbanu Sultan. If someone really wants to see his photo, s/he can visit his article's page. Keivan.fTalk 06:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
And also I find no rule in Wikipedia that we should always explain the other users why we edit an article. Here's not a primary school. We don't need the others permissions on talk pages before a little edit to an article. Also reverting an IP user's vandalism doesn't need explanation. Keivan.fTalk 07:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Spelling error for Oprah[edit]

On the Oprah Winfrey page under the section "born" her name is spelled Orpah. Just an Fyi

The sources say that she was born Orpah, but because it was difficult for her family to pronounce this name they changed it to Oprah after a while. Keivan.fTalk 22:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Noriko Senge may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • son-of-izumo-taisha-priest-relinquishes-royal-status/#.VDFoc1e5_y0}|accessdate=5 October 2014}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


Wikipedia is very good tool!I enjoyed it soon much and its writers r also very intelligent but I want Wikipedia to show pictures also by the way it is very informative and detailed and it tells about every point.By using it I got so many information. Please show pics of everyone's. I like Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's good that you have become interested in Wikipedia and I hope you like the place. Actually, we can't add images to every article in Wikipedia because of copyright licenses that they have. Only free images can be uploaded under Wikipedia's rules. I suggest you create an account and start editing if you really like here. Keivan.fTalk 15:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Uthman ibn Affan[edit]

I have commented on the talk of this article about changing the title of this Article. I think you belong to Shia form of Islam

@Owais khursheed: Yes, I belong to Shia form of Islam but I have read about Sunni caliphs too and I think it's not really good to have the three others' articles under the titles Abu Bakr, Umar, Ali and then this one as Uthman ibn Affan. You said that Uthman is known under the name "Uthman ibn Affan" but I think Umar is also known as Umar ibn al-Khattab and Ali as Ali ibn Abi-Talib. So I think it's better to move Uthman ibn Affan to Uthman. Keivan.fTalk 15:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

yeah they should have these names. you should instead request an admin to change their titles to their proper name. But you are going in the other way. Abu Bakr is popular by this name. you should request Admin for changing Ali to Ali bin abi Talib and like wise for Umer (may allah be pleased with them). Owais khursheed (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

But it seems that the other users won't agree with changing the name of these articles (Umar and Ali), so it's better to move Uthman. As I see it seems to be a normal move because you and maybe some other users won't agree with changing the name of Uthman's article. Keivan.fTalk 15:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Keivan.f. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 18:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User rights[edit]

Hello Keivan.f. Your account has been granted the "rollback" and "reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users.

Rollback user right
Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg
Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Reviewer user right
Wikipedia Reviewer.svg
The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! —Tom Morris (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tom Morris: Thanks a lot! Keivan.fTalk 15:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Prince Chichibu[edit]

Prince Chichibu was passed over in the line of succession in October 1940 in favour of his younger brother Prince Takamatsu. I have found several references relating to this matter (in the article Line of succession to the Japanese throne, see the section "Succession debates and conteoversies, reference #12). Please do not make any changes to the article without supporting references. Thank you. Aumnamahashiva (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Japanese royalty[edit]

The recent revisions on pages on japanese princes and princesses nearly gave me a fit. The user's rationale seems to be based on information given on the official website of the Imperial Household Agency which doesn't hold up since that information hasn't been updated properly in ages. Besides, official pages for British Royals refer to them by their ducal titles where possible, but Wikipedia pages for all those people don't omit their names -.- . What's your stance on the situation, since you were active on those pages before ? I'm in favour of reinstating their name + title because it's less confusing. --Killuminator (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I would also argue Avicenna and Averroes need a move but then again both their latin and real names are kind of equally represented in all sorts of media. --Killuminator (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Killuminator: A few months ago I wanted Roxelana to be moved to Hurrem Sultan, her Ottoman royal name. But users opposed the move and gave examples such as Avicenna and said that in these cases Latin name should be used. Keivan.fTalk 15:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Hurrem, there is this Turkish sitcom Magnificent Century, and since they of course use the Turkish name, the term Roxelana was largely pushed out of use in many places in SE Europe. --Killuminator (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
An example of a good move is Uluru. When I was learning about Australia in elementary school, the most common name was Ayers rock and it still is a rather widely used term, of that there can be no doubt. But, our teacher told us that Uluru war the correct name and over time, the word Uluru simply demoted the term Ayers rock. Words and meanings simply change over time, but we people are rather nostalgic beings and it takes us some time to adapt to changes. Anyway, a week has passed for those princely members of the Japanese imperial family, can we move them now ? Also I had a suggestion for this page, check out the last post on the talk page. --Killuminator (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Killuminator: I'll try again to give a move request for Hurrem Sultan in the future. And about the Japanese Imperial Family, well an administrator will close the discussion tomorrow and move the pages himself. I will answer to your suggestion on the article's talk page. Also I posted a paragraph from Japanese Wikipedians on Prince Akishino's talk page that shows why their empresses are called like this. Keivan.fTalk 20:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I asked for help from someone named Ryulong to help me with Japanese empresses' articles but he just removes my messages without any clear reason and escapes from answering. Keivan.fTalk 21:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
So much for traditional Japanese hospitality. Sadly, I'm not competent enough to trim down the family tree, do you know someone adequate for the job ? --Killuminator (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Killuminator: Yes, I think I know someone. Keivan.fTalk 22:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Killuminator: Also do you think Roxelana should be moved to Hurrem Sultan? Keivan.fTalk 11:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I didn't see your question, I was so busy these day. My last exam was this morning and I hope I pass, yikes. That should clear my semester. I would support moving it to Hurrem Sultan since it's clearly gaining on usage seeing how there's a sitcom that propelled the popularity of Suleiman I and people of that era. There's even a song about it : HUREM . --Killuminator (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
And yeah, the admins didn't move those pages we discussed earlier, even though there is a clear unanimous vote on the matter. --Killuminator (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for posting three times in a row, my brain is scrambled. A similar person from the same time period as Roxelana would be the infamous Redbeard but still the page is titled by his real name Oruç Reis. --Killuminator (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
@Killuminator: Hello. I hope you pass your exams. As I said previously I requested moving Roxelana to Hurrem Sultan which was opposed by some users. Many Ottoman sultanas were known by nicknames in Europe but on Wikipedia the form of their articles' titles is "Name Sultan". Her royal and official name is Hurrem Sultan and she is known by this name in Asia, Eastern Europe, and North Africa. Over 300 millions of people in over 50 countries watched the TV series Magnificent Century and almost all of those people know her under the title Hurrem Sultan. It's true that here is English Wikipedia but we shouldn't forget that this language is international. But I think this time you should give a move request and I'll support it absolutely. About Japanese royals, well I think there are too many pages listed to be moved and during these days one of admins close the discussion and move the pages. I'll try to talk to one of them to move the pages sooner. Keivan.fTalk 14:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
@Killuminator: I think my brain is scrambled too. I wanted to say Africa but I wrote America. However as that TV series is currently airing in USA, so she will become known by the name Hurrem. Keivan.fTalk 14:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
@Killuminator: Giving some examples of Ottoman sultanas who also have nicknames: Mihrimah Sultan (Hurrem's daughter) is also known as Cameria, Mahidevran Sultan (Suleiman's another consort) is also known as Rosne Pranvere, and many other examples. Keivan.fTalk 14:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not experienced enough to request it and I think it's a bit early. Regarding the family tree (Japan), some user made it EVEN SMALLER ! It's outrageous to me seeing how I wear glasses and reading such puny letters requires me too get closer to the screen. Can you get that guy to trim the family tree down pleaseeee ? --Killuminator (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed something regarding Russian empresses, there is no navigational template for consorts. None, zippo, nix. --Killuminator (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw this discussion here now. I do not agree with it, because you are inventing a format that is incorrect. Gryffindor (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my user talk page[edit]

When someone reverts a message you left for them, the general consensus on Wikipedia is that person has read it and simply did not wish to respond to it. Your insistence that I respond to you is not a right you or anyone has as you have so dutifully figured out yourself when you reverted my response to the fact that when you link to someone else's screenname in a thread, it automatically notifies them that they were mentioned like if you tag someone on Facebook or Twitter. I apologize for having not left a more valid reason for the initial revert. I hit enter too many times and didn't get to put in the edit summary that I do not care and do not wish to be involved in your unnecessary request to change several articles' titles.

Also, you are incorrect in your knowledge of rollback. Not only do I not have WP:ROLLBACK (I use WP:TWINKLE) I am free to use it as I see fit in my userspace and I would not be considered edit warring if someone repeatedly posted there against my wishes.

So please, do not link to my userpage again unless you want to get my attention. Do not involve me in your request to move every page on a the empresses consort of Japan. And do not assume I'm Japanese.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ryulong: Hi. First I apologize for saying bad words to you. I became really angry that time. I didn't become sad that why you're not interested in the topic, all I wanted to tell you that you could just say: "No, I can't help you". Since I hadn't heard that reverting someone's edits on your talk page means that you do not wish to be involved in his or her request, I thought that I had written something wrong in your talk page. I'm also a rollbacker but usually I don't use it for reverting the other users' edits and I try to answer them. And my purpose isn't to change Japanese empresses articles' titles, I just want to expand them. I needed a person who is interested in Japan's culture and know Japanese language and I thought that maybe you can help me. I asked some interested users for help and they answered. Again I apologize if I made you sad. Keivan.fTalk 23:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, before you revert that, the editor was blocked as a banned user's sock. Also he lies about any restrictions I may have not that they're even relevant here tbh.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ryulong: Sorry but I didn't understand what you said. Which editor do you mean exactly? Keivan.fTalk 21:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
It's in your talk page history. I would rather apply WP:DENY to say anything further, but I've previously had to eal with editors who constantly restored attacks on me posted by banned editors sockpuppeting.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diana, Princess of Wales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Morton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries, please[edit]

Hello Keivan, and thanks for your contributions. Please consider making a habit of providing an edit summary when you make a change to an article. Doing so makes it easier and quicker for your fellow editors to understand the intention of your edit and to collaborate with you on the encyclopedia. Thanks in advance for considering this suggestion. Eric talk 16:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Eric: Thanks for your suggestion. I'll do it. Keivan.fTalk 10:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Copying Camilla's article[edit]

Is there a reason why you keep doing that to Diana's? Every article should be written in its own way, you're making it so obvious and sad. (Monkelese (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Diana's article need two different sections, her early life, education and career needs to split, Camill's article didn't need to be split.

I know this wikipedia but please stop doing that, although it's already done, hope you happy. (Monkelese (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi dear @Monkelese:. Actually I have expanded Diana's article since two years ago. During these years I just tried to get inspiration from other articles, the Queen Mother's article, Camilla's article, etc. But you're right too. There should be some differences between articles. They shouldn't look exactly the same. I try to make more differences from now. Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 08:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
HEY KEiVAN WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU ARE DOING? You just copy whatever I write in Camilla's article to Diana's, again i said stop it, the articles look too similar in the lead and most parts all because of what you are doing, just today I wrote, She has also raised awareness in areas including rape and sexual abuse, and literacy, for which she has been praised, and you write the same for Diana, using AIDS and leprosy, why do you keep making both articles similar, I suggest you remove the duplications and come up with your own ideas, it is wrong and immature stealing someone's way of writing. You are not like looking for inspiration, you're looking to make both of articles the same, which is severely wrong after I told you to stop it. Yet after I edited Camilla's page, you edit Diana's page writing the same as if it some sort of competition. I will report this if I can, I took Camilla's page which was not edited years ago and edited with my own style, you should have and should do the same. This is not about thinking her article is mine, but protecting it from unneccesary edits. Now you take Camilla's article and write it like Diana's, it is very wrong and if I were you I would remove it all and rewrite on your own. Again, every article has its way of writing, I get inspiration from other articles including Diana's but i DO NOT duplicate or copy exactly what is on her article, this is what you are doing, I had to revert Childhood and Youngadulthood on Diana's page because it was irrelevant for you to copy it from Camilla's. Again what do you intend to gain? Its like you are comparing both ladies whom you and I know are completely different from eachother. I wonder if I can report your childish behavior. (Monkelese (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Monkelese: Calm down. I just thought that you have written that sentence long time ago. You really think that I'm waiting for you to do something with Camilla's article? Hah. I don't follow you and I don't have to give answers to you about what I do with the other articles. Maybe you're right, I was wrong, I shouldn't add a sentence that is completely similar to Camilla's one, but if you look at Diana's article you see the information are completely different. Actually I was the person who separated Diana's early life section to two different parts long time ago and created another one for her education and career. Diana had a section for her charity work before Camilla, which I have expanded during these two years, if I added the title "areas of interest" it doesn't mean that I have stolen your precious way of writing. I created a section titled princess of wales after I read the Queen Mother's article that has a section titled duchess of york. If you really think using a sentence is stealing your way of writing then change it or every sentence you might think is similar to Camilla's article. Keivan.fTalk 18:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Monkelese: I think you're the one who's behaving like children. I don't understand the reason of your anxiety. As you said they're two different individuals. Their appearances, their charity works, everything about them is different. If you feel that there are some similarities that makes you annoyed, tell me and I think about how to change it with your help and advise. You seem to be a wise person, so let's solve this problem in its right way. Keivan.fTalk 18:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how old you are but you're very childish, this is not Diana's fansite, look at my edit on Camillas [Camilla, and look at Diana's on the same day Diana's you're copying exactly what I write, I don't care about sections like Areas of Interest, I care about duplicating the same thing I write, you should know better than that, even her grandfather, you do the same to to Diana's grandfather, why? As I said I have been inspired by articles including Diana's but never thought of copying the way her article is written, if you can't come up with a writing style, then stop editing. (Monkelese (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Monkelese: I removed that sentence. Anything else? Even when I asked you to tell me the problems, you behave like this. I'm really sorry for you. Keivan.fTalk 18:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I will tell you who's aritcle I got inspired by highlighting the works on the Duchess, I got it through Michelle obamas article and overall the first ladies, but i never thought of using the same writing style. There is a difference, what I see here is basically taking most sentence in Camillas article to Diana's, and you don't rewrite it. They way their lead is written is very similar, it should not be. I don't have to point it out to you, you know which sentences (Monkelese (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean to delete your !vote?[edit]

You appear to have added a !vote and then deleted it. Was that what you intended to do? Cheers! bd2412 T 21:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@BD2412: Hi dear. Actually I wanted to support the move at first, but after looking at the books written by her and some other official documents that the others had provided, I changed my mind. I don't know whether to support it or opposse it. I also really don't have enough time currently to participate in such discussions. I hope all of the users choose the best title for the article. Keivan.fTalk 05:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
That is entirely reasonable. Thanks for explaining. bd2412 T 12:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions at RfD[edit]

I am not good at giving barnstars even though you deserve one, because I edit everything longhand, but would like to thank you for your contributions over at WP:RFD. I for one very much appreciate it and appreciate your expertise on Turkish Turkik?) subjects. Please forve me my typing mistakes, my fingers are larger than the keys. WP:RFD is a good place to hang out, because there are a few intelligent people who can cast their eye in all kinds of different directions, and that is the fun of it: I hope you shall become a regular there. Don't let anyone put you off, I may well disagree with you from time to time, but never personal, just arguing the case. Wittgenstein after all said the world is everything that is the case, at the start of Philosphia Mathematica, and finished with "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". (Or in other words, "If you don1t know, shut up"). But what more can you expect from a German :) Si Trew (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: Hi, Thanks dear. Sorry for replying late. I was too busy. I should say that I really enjoy to discuss both in real life and in the social media. Unfortunately, I can't neither come to Wikipedia everyday nor participate in such discussions currently, because I'm studying for my final exams at school and also for my university entrance exam. But I'll promise to come and be more active on WP:RFD and everywhere as soon as possible. Keivan.fTalk 16:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Well bloody good luck to you. I was just translating a SPanish article from WP:PNT so my English is probably even worse than yours! All the best for your exams, you are a clever chap, you should sail through them. Si Trew (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Thank you so much. I wish you the best in everything you do. Keivan.fTalk 16:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I do nothing. I cook and clean and can translate and stuff like that, but I can't really work properly cos I lack concentration, I used to have it, but after a couple of hours now, I drift off and start singing Chas and Dave songs or something from Billy Bragg and just start playing on the joanna and completely lose the plot. Now, I can tell you how a joanna works but I have no idea what the black ones do, they seem to have stuck them in just to make Irving Berlin and George Gershwin put everything in B flat minor. And what have all the other keys got that the key of C major hasn't, I ask you?
I used to be able to concentrate, but I can't now. Si Trew (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: It's just a negative feeling. I'm sure you can take back your concentration in the future. And also everything you do in your life, try to do it in its best way. No matter what it is, cooking, washing, etc. I liked to talk more but I should go back to my room and rest, after a day full of stress because of Mathematics. Keivan.fTalk 17:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
That's all one can do, do one's best. My three rules in life are don't hit, don't lie, don't cheat. After that everything is a bonus. Si Trew (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

there you again[edit]

Please remove other areas from Diana's section , seems you are not listening, come up with your own title, it ridiculous how obsessed you are right now, and stop removing things from Camilla's page, rewrite or let it be, its high time you stop this{Monkelese (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Monkelese: I changed the title, but I'm really tired of your orders. How about changing the sections' titles in Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge's article because they're also similar to Camilla's article!! And I removed that sentence from the lead section of Camilla's article because it says that she uses the title "Duchess of Rothesay" because of the strong association of the title "Princess of Wales" with Diana. It's completely wrong as Diana was also Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland. Camilla adopted the title "Duchess of Cornwall" because of Diana. You reverted my explained edit without a clear reason. I think you have become sensitive on each of my edits. As I said before try to be optimistic a little and stop this behavior. And let this discussion end here now because neither me nor you have time to discuss for silly reasons and I have nothing to say and no more time for discussing anymore. Keivan.fTalk 08:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The Duchess of Cornwall's other title are all supposed to mention, only thing mentioned is the princess of wales, why? Look at Diana's all is mentioned, you could have rewrote it, although it already makes sense, yet you choose to remove an entire sentence, you could have wrote, in scotland she uses duchess of rothesay and her other titles are the rest. removing it was uncessary, we HAD a discussion about this, you seem to be making sure both women have their page and everything written the same way, again they are different, even after I added extended family to Camilla's template, you do the same to Diana's, why? her template was fine before...listen to what you're doing wrong and stop coming up with excuses (Monkelese (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
As you can see it has been added, not removed, I will also not have this conversation anymore, regardless of what I say or said it doesn't matter to you, and I will say too, i have nothing to say to you anymore or discuss regarding this. This is my final say on this matter (Monkelese (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Monkelese: But isn't that making the lead sections the same? Because Diana's titles are mentioned in the lead section they have to be mentioned in Camilla's article too. OK. And yes, we had a discussion over this matter, but adding a new section to a template is not copying. I will add extended family to Charles and William's templates too and I see no problem here. Also as we agreed before the articles shouldn't have the same sentences. Another user and I changed Diana's lead section after you mentioned this, but similarity in third-level headings doesn't make that much problem. "Charity" section in Diana's article is a little bit similar to Queen Rania of Jordan as most of the royals perform public duties and it should be mentioned. I think we won't have more problems in the future as we discussed almost everything about these two articles. Keivan.fTalk 05:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Kit Harington[edit]


With regards to Kit Harington's page, to my understanding both Kit himself and the show creators have advised that 'Jon Snow is dead'. When pressed for more information about the character, they further confirmed that, saying 'dead is dead'. I believe that this is sufficient information to change the dates of Kits presence on the show.

Yours sincerely,

An active Wikipedia user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Pippa Middleton[edit]

Are all of my ref. OK on this page? Srbernadette (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks

I never add their names in Valide Sultan template. In fact, I removed it. It had been there before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafidh Wahyu P (talkcontribs) 14:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turhan Hatice Sultan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Consort (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Haseki Sultan = Empress[edit]

Why Haseki Sultan can't be translated as empress? Hafidh Wahyu P (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hafidh Wahyu P Hi. Actually we can't make rules and decide how to translate it. Unfortunately the historical books doesn't mention the existence of such position (Empress) in the Ottoman courts. As far as I know historians also haven't translated it as Empress. I don't know what the word "Haseki" exactly means. Although if you have a reliable source that proves your opinion you're free to use it. Otherwise it's better to leave it in the way it is and not translate it. Keivan.fTalk 16:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia[edit]

At 14:53 on 12 May 2015 you copied some text from the article Charles, Prince of Wales to the article Diana, Princess of Wales. When you do this you must note that you have done so in the edit history. Also when you make such a copy, please make sure that if there are any short citations in the text copied that you also copy the long citation from the source article into the target article. You will find details of all this in the guideline Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, however failure to attribute the copy is a breach of the copyright policy detail of which are in Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusing text within Wikipedia).

-- PBS (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Halime Sultan[edit]

Hello Keivan, I see there is many false Informations about the consort or Valide Sultanas of the Ottoman Empire. Too much selfmade storys like Noble womans from circassian, Abkhazian Familys etc. This was not the real fact in the Ottoman Harem system, because they didn't want to have Womans from Noble Families in the Harem, like the Yeniceri.

Halime Sultan as a Valide is not given in any realiable sources.

To my Person, I am a descendant of Saliha Sultan, daughter of Mahmud II, and I wonder me, How many is written about the Womans in the Harem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talkcontribs) 14:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nalanidil Hello. Actually about Halime Sultan's situation I agree with you. The name of the mother of Mustafa I isn't recorded in history, and the book used as a source doesn't mention her name. I think one of the users moved it based on the new historical TV series that is currently airing in Turkey. As for this, you can give a move request. Valide Sultan (mother of Mustafa I) can be a better title. About the origins and early lives of Ottoman consorts I should say that they are sourced by numerous books and removing them without discussion on talk pages isn't a wise decision. Feel free to remove the "unsourced" paragraphs but the sourced information cannot be removed because you think that they're wrong. You must first provide reliable sources and then change the information. Also it's not stated that all of the Ottoman consorts were from noble families, only some of them were, but as they were captured and then sent to the harem, they turned to be slaves at first and it couldn't cause problem for the harem's system. Then they could rose to power and become Valide or Haseki. Keivan.fTalk 16:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I have a Problem with the User Nein, he always made speedy for deletion for Ayse Siddika Hanimsultan the daughter of Saliha Sultan (daughter of Mahmud II). This angry me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talkcontribs) 20:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nalanidil There's no reason to be angry. That page was deleted because its individual wasn't notable enough to have a separate article on Wikipedia. Being related to a notable person doesn't mean that you're also notable. A person also won't become notable because of your personal views. You must provide reliable sources that proves a person was notable or influential in history. It's clear that Ayse Siddika wasn't an important figure in Ottoman history. She's unknown. I think moving the information about her to Saliha Sultan's article was a good decision. The articles about other Ottoman imperial princesses are sourced. You can see the sources in references sections. Those who don't have enough sources are tagged. And of course the daughters of a king are more notable than his granddaughters. And as an advise, please don't blank your talk page. Only pay attention to the messages and follow the instructions. If you have access to reliable sources, then use them and the articles won't be deleted. Keivan.fTalk 11:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Well the sources I taken from this Book, it is written by the Ottoman Dynasty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talkcontribs) 20:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nalanidil Well, I saw the book and it seems to be reliable. But the main point is that it's just a genealogy. Maybe you can use this book for creating a family tree or add the name of Ottoman princes and princesses' descendants to their articles but you can't create separate articles for each and everyone of them, as a genealogy doesn't prove their notability. It's not actually a biography to show their activities and achievements. I'm completely sure that all of them weren't prominent, maybe some of them. But then again multiple other sources are needed to prove their notability. And as I said above my final statement is that being related to a royal family doesn't mean that a person is notable on his own. As a suggestion please read Wikipedia:Notability (people). It helps you to understand what I said better. Keivan.fTalk 09:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Princess Rukiye Fazl[edit]

Well, if a Hanimsultan a Granddaughter of an Ottoman Sultan is not important for Wikipedia, why then a Princess of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talkcontribs) 03:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nalanidil I didn't say that a Hanimsultan isn't important at all. You completely misunderstood what I said as you're looking so dynastic and fanatic to this matter. I said that being a Hanimsultan doesn't bring notability for a person. Maybe there were some influential and powerful Hanimsultans in history and they surely can have articles on Wikipedia but those like Ayse Siddika who weren't prominent and didn't play a role in political matters of the country or even the harem cannot. Princess Rukiye Fazl's article also doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and I will give a proposed deletion request for it but not because she was a princess of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty, but because she wasn't a prominent figure. Of course if there had been any powerful and famous princess in this dynasty she can have an article on Wikipedia. That's all. Keivan.fTalk 09:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Serenay Sarıkaya[edit]

Hi, you better take care of that article now 'cause is nominated for deletion by an insane! Regards (Mona778 (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC))

Well done! He gave up! Cheers Face-smile.svg (Mona778 (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC))
@Mona778 Thanks for bringing this issue into my attention. Regards. Keivan.fTalk 17:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Damat Gürcü Halil Rifat Pasha[edit]

Hello Keivan, maybe you can help me to create this Page. He was the Husband of Saliha Sultan (Mahmud II's daughter). He was one of the last big Ottoman Statemans and a native Georgian Prince. He was captured as Boy and grew up as a Muslim, in the last Janissaries Time. He married firstly Saliha Sultan and after her death he married again and got a son. This son was Damat Mahmud Celaleddin Pasha, who also became a Groom, because he married Seniha Sultan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talkcontribs) 12:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the Turkish Page of Damat Gürcü Halil Rifat Pasha:

@Nalanidil I checked the Turkish article. It seems to be well sourced and the individual is also notable. You can create it. Currently, I don't have much time to translate it myself. You can translate the Turkish version to English yourself and don't forget to include the sources completely. Then I can check the grammar and the article's shape. I won't be on Wikipedia until Friday so if you create the article before that time, I can later improve it. Keivan.fTalk 13:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Keivan, well my Turkish is bad, but I have create the Page... Damat Gürcü Halil Rifat Pasha is not to be confused with Halil Rifat Pasha, there are two different Persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talkcontribs) 15:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Keivan.f. You have new messages at Nedim Ardoğa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"Hatun" and "Sultan"[edit]

Was Ayse Hatun (wife of Osman II) really Haseki Sultan? Why in many sources, she called "Hatun", not "Sultan"? About Mahidevran. Was she really "hatun", not "sultan"? What is your sources? In article of Roxelana say "Mahidevran lost her status in the palace". I think (just my opinion) this word meaning she lost her status as "sultan". In Muhtezem Yuzyil, when concubines have a son, she received title "sultan". I know this series just "fiction", but this series talking about "history". So, of course some part from this series based on tradition in that time or some historical sources. What do you think? Hafidh Wahyu P (talk) 11:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hafidh Wahyu P Just forget Muhtezem Yuzyil. The title "haseki sultan" was created for Hurrem Sultan for the first time. Before that all the wives were called hatun. The article says that Mahidevran lost her status in the palace which refers to her status as the mother of the only heir apparent to the throne. About Ayse Hatun (wife of Osman II) and Ayse Hatun (wife of Murad IV) I don't have enough knowledge. You may ask this question from the user who created those articles and expanded them. Keivan.fTalk 12:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Hurrem was first Haseki Sultan. But, what only haseki who can held title sultan? Mahfiruz Hatice was not Haseki nor Valide, but she received title sultan, too. From i know, title sultan appeared in 16th century for prominent dynasty member. It's very possible Mahidevran as mother for only Heir apparent received the title sultan too beside Ayse Hafsa as Valide and imperial princesses. Sorry for my English.Hafidh Wahyu P (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
@Hafidh Wahyu P No, it's OK, I can understand what you're saying. First of all Mahfiruz's situation was different from Mahidevran. Although she wasn't a Valide Sultan she was alive during her son's reign and it's more possible that she had received the title "Sultan". Mahidevran was only the mother of heir apparent and her son died sooner than his father and never took the throne, so Mahidevran was neither a Valide Sultan nor the mother of a sultan. She was neither a Haseki as this title was first created for Hurrem. The individuals who held the title "Sultan" were the king himself, his mother "Valide Sultan", his principal consort "Haseki Sultan", and the imperial princes and princesses. Besides Mahidevran is mentioned as Mahidevran Hatun in Padişahların Kadınları ve Kızları by Çağatay Uluçay, The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire by Leslie Pierce and also in a quote from an Ottoman source. Keivan.fTalk 10:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
But what about Selimiye Sultan? She was consort of Selim II. She didn't Haseki nor Valide. Hafidh Wahyu P (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@Hafidh Wahyu P So the article's title should be Selimiye Hatun not Selimiye Sultan. Keivan.fTalk 13:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


Hello. I just reverted the edits of the IP, which show a remarkable similarity to the edits of the IP I used WHOIS and found that the ISPs for both of these IP addresses are identical. Do you think that these editors are working in concert or are otherwise socks? Dschslava (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dschslava I have no idea. Maybe they're the same person. Anyway all of this has happened because of some information on a personal weblog that claims Mahidevran, Mahfiruz, Halime and many other sultanas are from the same family. The sources used on these articles don't even mention such theory but an individual who claims to be Mahidevran's descendant has another opinion on this issue. However there's not any source or evidence available to prove her claims. Keivan.fTalk 08:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your addition to Katharine, Duchess of Kent has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers Which addition do you mean exactly? Keivan.fTalk 16:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
This edit on 11 September 2012, where you copy-pasted a block of content from this page (I've linked to a version of it archived on 29 February 2012, to show that there's no possibility whatsoever that the royal household copied their content from us). Now I'm looking at some of your other edits, and I'm very concerned at what I'm seeing. You are an experienced long-term editor. Is it possible that you don't know that you cannot copy non-free content from external sources into Wikipedia? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
A bit more research confirmed what I had feared: that you appear to have made a habit of this. I've asked for a complete review of all your edits (please see the notice below). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Diana, Princess of Wales may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • on the anniversary of her death|work=Hello|accessdate=24 May 2015|date=31 August 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book<ref>{{Cite book
  • 05/dunne200805|title=Two Ladies, Two Yachts, and a Billionaire|newspaper=[[Vanity Fair (magazine))|Vanity Fair]]|location=New York|author=[[Dominick Dunne]]|accessdate=11 October 2013}}</ref></ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

CCI Notice[edit]

Hello, Keivan.f. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It's just to ask whether you should continue to have the reviewer user right while this is being sorted out. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Keivan.f, I have blocked your account after reading through the discussion at ANI. I am not convinced that you understand the copyright policy of this site, a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations. Repeated copyright violations took place in spite of repeated warnings, and even while discussion was taking place. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa OK. Block me. But can I know the reason? Actually I was adding some information that were removed by Justletterandnumbers by copying it from the page's history. Go and check the article. He reverted my edits without a clear reason. I didn't add any of those copyrighted material. I was just removing sources that were marked as unreliable and adding the harmless material that was written by other users. For example take a look at the ancestry section. Some of the sources are unreliable. It would be very good if you could restore some information from the previous version. And another thing, for how long I will remain blocked? Keivan.fTalk 06:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa You could at least answer my message. Look at the mess that has been made on "legacy" section. Why don't you restore some sections' material that didn't include any copyrighted information? Keivan.fTalk 09:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for not answering promptly; I was asleep. Cleanup is underway on Diana, Princess of Wales. We are trying to do this while minimizing the damage done to the article, and interfering as little as possible with additions made by other users. This process will take several days at least, and then I will go over the article top to bottom and clean it up as much as possible. Regarding your block, you will be unblocked once we are convinced that you understand our copyright policy and intend to carefully abide by it in the future. Please read the material at the policy page Wikipedia:Copyrights and the guideline Wikipedia:Plagiarism. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa Thanks for your response and explanation. I prefer to keep quiet from now. As you're an experienced user, I'm sure you know how to clean up this article and also restore harmless information again. About the copyright policy, as you had mentioned it above, I read Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Thanks again. Keivan.fTalk 15:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa Hi Diannaa. I just have a question. For how long should I stay blocked? Keivan.fTalk 14:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
You are blocked indefinitely, because copyright violations are a major breach of policy. Using sock accounts or IPs like you did here to avoid your block greatly reduces the chances that you will ever be unblocked. — Diannaa (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa And what does that mean? Many other users have violated copyright policies but they're not even blocked. I can name some of them. So I can't understand your reasons for blocking me. And also according to Wikipedia's guidelines an indefinite block doesn't mean that a user must stay blocked forever. So I can become unblocked. The only thing that I want to know is that how it is possible. It will be really kind of you if you explain it to me. Because I'm really tired of this situation. Keivan.fTalk 15:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa Anyway you could at least answer. I'm trying to solve this problem by talking and asking rather than insulting and arguing as many other blocked users do. But if you don't want to answer it's OK, I can get help from other administrators. It seems that you have mistaken blocking with punishment. As I said some other users who have violated copyright policies weren't blocked or at least they weren't blocked indefinitely. I had said it before and I'm repeating it again. My edits weren't vandalism. I was just unaware of copyright policies. But I'm familiar with them now and I still can't understand why I should stay blocked. Keivan.fTalk 15:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for not answering promptly; I had to go to work. The reason your account is still blocked is because you said on 31 January that you prefer to keep quiet for now, did not request an unblock, and did not give any indication that you now understand our copyright policy and intend to follow it in the future. I am now unblocking your account, as well as the underlying IP, because these conditions have now been met. I will be monitoring your contributions daily, and any further copyright violations will result in your being re-blocked. If that happens, it's extremely unlikely that you would be un-blocked a second time. Make sure that all content you add to the encyclopedia is written in your own words. Good luck and happy editing. — Diannaa (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa Thanks for unblocking but before I start to edit again I have to ask some questions. First of all, am I allowed to restore the previous versions of those articles that you reverted my edits on as they were block evasions? Another thing that I want to know is that may I use the sources that were removed from the princess's article as long as I rewrite their material in my own words? Besides I know some articles that include copyrighted material. Should I report them? (But they weren't expanded by me, I swear). Keivan.fTalk 15:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It's okay to resume editing using any sources, including the ones from the deleted edits, as long as all material you add is written in your own words in compliance with copyright law and the policies of this website. I will be watching your edits for copyright issues, and any further violations will result in you being re-blocked.
  • Yes, you can and should report any copyright violations that you find. The place to do so is Wikipedia:Copyright problems.
  • I have a problem with this edit, where you cited the Williamson article(s). The full citation is: Williamson, D. (1981a). "The Ancestry of Lady Diana Spencer". Genealogist's Magazine 20 (6): 192–199 and Williamson, D. (1981b). "The Ancestry of Lady Diana Spencer". Genealogist's Magazine 20 (8): 281–282. Did you personally view these magazine articles to verify that the content you are supporting is present there? If so, how did you do that, as the magazines are not available online, and they were published in 1981? Please don't restore this edit unless you have actually viewed the magazines and can say for sure the citations support the material. — Diannaa (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa Actually I hadn't used that magazine as a citation. User:DrKay however seems to have access to this source as he had added it in the ancestry charts. I can ask him. If he confirms that this magazine supports the material, may I restore that version again? And also what about the other articles like Kösem Sultan which you had previously reverted my edits on it as block evasion? Keivan.fTalk 22:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
You added the magazine as a source with this edit, even though you have never even seen it. That was a wrong thing to do. Please don't do that any more. You must check yourself that any citations you add actually support the content. Please don't re-add that edit unless User:DrKay has access to those articles and can confirm the citations support the material like they are supposed to do. You can re-add the other edits, though. — Diannaa (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa Very well. I'll ask him. As he's an administrator himself and also has created and expanded a variety of royal articles, I'm sure that he can confirm whether this source supports the material or not. If his answer was yes, I restore the previous version, if not, I'll re-do the other harmless edits again. Thanks by the way. Keivan.fTalk 09:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa. I finally asked DrKay to see whether the source mentioned above supports the material or not. And unfortunately his answer was no. The source is a list of ancestors with their dates of births and deaths. That's it. It doesn't contain information about the ancestors' nationality and lineage. Is it possible to restore the previous version and remove the sentence? Besides, I don't have access to any laptop right now to restore that version. It would be very kind of you if you could do it instead and then remove that part of the paragraph of course if you don't see any other problem on that version. Keivan.fTalk 23:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know which sentence you wish to restore. Could you be more specific? — Diannaa (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa I had asked your permission to restore this version of the article ( before you revert it as a block evasion), and you said that there was a problem with the citation that I mentioned above as you doubted that whether this source supported the material or not (Diana was of English and remote German, Irish, Scottish and British-American descent). I explained the situation to User:DrKay and he said the source was a list of the Princess' ancestors and didn't contain information about their nationality or lineage. So based on his answer it could be used on the ancestry charts but not as a source for the sentence that I mentioned above. I just wanted to know if it's possible for you to restore that version yourself if you don't see any other problem and remove the sentence that is not actually sourced. Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 09:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
We can't restore that revision any more, as people have worked on the page in the meantime. You are free to work on the page yourself, as long as you don't introduce copyright violations, or insert citations that don't back up the content, and follow all the other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your response Diannaa. I have checked the page's history and it seems that the contributions were only vandalism reverting. Nothing has been added or removed from the article. Anyway, if you really think that it's not possible to restore that version, I will re-do my edits in the future. And don't worry, I won't add any copyrighted information again. I got my lesson. Thanks by the way. Keivan.fTalk 14:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ottoman Married[edit]

Do you know about married system in Ottoman? I look in Mahidevran page and it said Mahidevran was wife of Ottoman. Ayse Hafsa was muslim and not concubine too, but there is not sources says Sultan married her in formal ceremony. I think there are two kinds of marriage in the Ottoman dynasty, legal marriage and Nikah 'urfi. Ayse Hafsa and (posibbly) Mahidevran became imperial consorts with nikah 'urfi, and Hurrem with formal ceremony, that's why Hurrem received the title Haseki Sultan. When the legal marriage is no longer carried by the sultan after the 17th century, the title haseki sultan also no longer used. What do you think? Hafidh Wahyu P (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Hafidh Wahyu P Sorry for answering too late. To be honest I have no idea about that issue. Ayşe Hafsa was a free woman not a slave so she couldn't be in Selim I's harem unless that they were married. About Mahidevran, the sources inculde different contents. There are so many theories about her background and life with Suleiman I, so nothing is actually clear about the details of her life. Keivan.fTalk 22:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


Can you please elaborate as to which sourced information has been removed by an IP for which you have asked an edit reverting the changes? IMWY6 (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Handan Sultan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman Turkish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Murad IV into Rezang La. 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. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa Hi dear Diana. Actually I moved some text into Kösem Sultan not Rezang la :) As of your explanation above I mentioned every time on my edit summaries that from which pages I was copying the texts. I think I just had to mention the username of the original contributor, is that all you wanted to piont out? And honestly I don't remeber copying some material within Wikipedia's articles. But if I remebered anything then what am I supposed to do? And what is the purpose of using the copied template? Where should I exactly put it? Keivan.fTalk 23:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Kösem Sultan is correct; my mistake. The "copied" template goes on the talk page. It is usually only used for major copying. Please, whenever you move some material from one article to another, you need to mention in your edit summary where it came from. Diff of Kösem Sultan - there's no edit summary. Here is a sample of the edit summary you should use: "Attribution: this material was copied from Murad IV on April 1, 2016. Please see the history of that page for attribution." — Diannaa (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa Alright. Thanks for your response. And should I put the "copied" template on the article's talk page? Do you think that my contributions can be considered as major copying within the articles? Keivan.fTalk 23:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's big enough to warrant it this time. — Diannaa (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa Also as you had said before I'm free to work on any article including Diana, Princess of Wales as long as I don't add any copyrighted material. My question is that how much a sentence must be changed to become suitable for adding on Wikipedia without causing copyright violations. For example a source has a sentence like this: "She and Prince Charles are sixteenth cousins through Henry VII." How should I change it? I just want to see how you change a sentence. :) Keivan.fTalk 16:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I might say "Diana and Charles were distantly related, as they were both descended from Henry VII." — Diannaa (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi dear Diannaa. I have recently edited Diana, Princess of Wales. I just wanted to inform you. I have explained my edits and I haven't copied nothing from no where. I'm going to change the order of sections later, change some of the sources on royal duties section and rewrite some material that was removed in my own words. If you don't see any problem I want to start again from next few weeks. Keivan.fTalk 14:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I found a good source for the relationship to the Duke of Marlborough and re-added it. Changing the wikilinks was not a good idea; Duke of Marlborough points to a disambiguation page, which is not what we want. We need to point to Duke of Marlborough (title). — Diannaa (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa Oh, sorry that was an accident. Besides, do you have access to Sarah Bradford's book or even the other books? I think you can expand the article more and so easily by using them :) Keivan.fTalk 22:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes I do have Bradford and Morton (his first book) and also one by Larry King called The People's Princess. Unfortunately none of these books is very scholarly as they do not cover some of the points we need citations for, such as the genealogy. I have limited time to work on this right now. Can you get anything at your local library? — Diannaa (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa Unfortunately I'm not even in my country, so I have access to nothing except the online sources. But those three books can be used to expand some personal information. Besides, I know that you're busy with cleaning the copyrighted material, so it will be good if you work on that article when you find some free time in the future. Thanks and good luck. :) Keivan.fTalk 11:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The page gets 3 million hits a year. It's what I consider core content, the sort of thing the encyclopedia needs a really good article on. But yeah, I am one of the only people working on copyvio, so I have to focus on that right now. On the plus side, there's no deadline, as the books never have to go back to the library: I own them. So hopefully someday. — Diannaa (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa Yes it's one of the popular articles among the users and IPs. And I think cleaning the articles from copyrighted material will never end :) So it'll better if you try to edit other articles as well. Personally I want to turn D, PoW to a good or featured article and I have to rewrite many things again but it would be better if an experienced user also helped. Keivan.fTalk 13:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa Also I again edited that article. You can check to see if anything is wrong. Keivan.fTalk 13:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
There's no problems. — Diannaa (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa Hi dear. Can you please check my recent contributions on Diana, Princess of Wales to see if there is any problem or not? Keivan.fTalk 22:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
These edits check out okay. — Diannaa (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa Alright, thanks for your attention. Please check my recent edits on this article dated April 24, 2016 and also check it again tomorrow as I will edit some parts of it later. I just prefer to inform you sooner as you wished to check my contributions, so you could correct the mistakes, errors or any copyright violations of course if they exist at all. Keivan.fTalk 18:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I have checked the edits and they are okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


Please check Haseki Sultan. I think there is vandalism in this article by account name ValideSultan. Also, (s)he also created article Meryem Ayşe Sultan who said that she was Murad IV's haseki and Mehmed VI's valide. Hafidh Wahyu P (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hafidh Wahyu P Sorry I wasn't on WP for a while but I checked the articles that you have mentioned and fortunately her edits are reverted. The article about that imaginary valide sultan has also been nominated for deletion. You can go and vote on its entry. If this user continues her vandalism, the I'll report her to the administrators. Thanks for your endless efforts to make WP better. Keivan.fTalk 11:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

There is a requested move at Talk:Ayşe Hafsa Sultan#Requested move 13 June 2016 on a page that you have edited in the past. You are invited to come to the talk page and give your input.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  01:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Muhteşem Yüzyıl[edit]

I have removed some plot description you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from or elsewhere online. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words please. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa Really? I didn't know that it was copied from Facebook. The plot summary was changed by an IP who hadn't mentioned that the previous content was copyrighted, and the way he had explained the plot had made it look like an advertisement. I thought that restoring the previous version of this section would be a good idea. So how can I find out whether something is copyrighted or not when I'm restoring an old version? Keivan.fTalk 23:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know you were restoring an old version. It's likely that Facebook copied from us in that case. Please leave a clearer edit summary in the future. I will put the content back now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa OK. Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 23:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Muhteşem Yüzyıl Kösem[edit]

Hello,I hope you have received my query on Muhteşem Yüzyıl Kösem article's talk page.Since the second season's premiere date has been announced and more people than now will,very likely,visit the article in order to obtain more information I would appreciate your opinion on my suggestions. Chris Liak (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems I failed to type your name right and thus you won't have been notified but I left another query on MYK 's talk page.I would appreciate it if you shared your thoughts. Chris Liak (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


Some smartypants deleted all season one characters from MYK's page!!How will we revert it? Chris Liak (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I managed to revert the edit after all.Forgive me for overreacting. Chris Liak (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Alright :) Keivan.fTalk 19:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


Hi Keivan.f. I've started a talk page discussion here. I'd appreciate anything you might care to add to the discussion. Thanks, Paul August 13:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Keivan.f. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Title -> Succession[edit]

I reverted your changes on the Safavid monarch pages where you changed every listed title to fall under "succession" (e.g. [3]), as you went on to change it on all the pages of the monarchs, and provided no reason. What is your rationale behind these changes? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Hi. I thought the reason was obvious that's why I didn't provide an edit summary. These individuals were monarchs as you said. In comparison to the way the titles are listed on the other articles about the current and deceased monarchs, the regnal titles should fall under "succession". That's a general rule. So do you still oppose my changes? Keivan.fTalk 01:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks much for your prompt response. I've never seen such a "rule", but regarding consistency (which we want to maintain) you're most probably right. Want me to reinstate it? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: Well, it's not a Wikipedia rule, maybe I should have called it a common method, but as you said in order to maintain consistency I also think that it's better to change the way the titles are listed on these articles. That's exactly what I was trying to do. ;) Cheers! Keivan.fTalk 02:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Its all fine :-) Understood your intentions. Bests and take care - LouisAragon (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho[edit]

Beren Saat[edit]

Hey Kevien, how are you?? I actually wanna ask you that why you reverted my edits on Beren Saat's article?? I think that my edits were real and looks more promising. So I request you to redit my edits, because that is true and looks more good. I hope you understand. If you have any problem, reply me on my talk page. Thank you India Ka Raja (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@India Ka Raja: Hi. I'm fine, thanks, and I hope you're well. The reason was pretty obvious. Some of the things you had added were unsourced, including a middle name, Huseyin, which is originally a name for male individuals in Arabic, as you may know, and Turkish naming system is different from Arabs' and there's no reason to include her father's name as a middle name. The other thing that you did was removing some information from the infobox without a clear reason. You also added some information about Saat's travel to Palestine which was totally unsourced. You have to provide sources for everything that you add into an article in order to prove its reliability. Also using some words like Nikah is unnecessary. In English Wikipedia, it's much more preferable to use English words instead of Arabic ones. You also changed a sentence in "Career" section, which was already sourced and there was no mention of the thing that you had added to the sentence. Despite all of these, I restored some of your grammar corrections on the lead section. From now on, please try to find reliable sources and please don't remove things that are already sourced without a discussion. Keivan.fTalk 06:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Well everything that I added to her article have reliable sources, but since I have no internet package right now, so I couldn't include them, don't worry next time I'll edit with a source. By the way from which country you belong?? India Ka Raja (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
By the way, though Nikah is an Arabic word, It is widely used in wikipedia. India Ka Raja (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@India Ka Raja: Please try to find credible sources in English or Turkish published by suitable news agencies, newspapers, etc. I checked your talk page and also your recent contributions. Unfortunately, your edits may be reverted on the other articles as well. First try to read Wikipedia's guidelines to understand what a reliable source is, and refrain from changing or removing sourced information again. Our personal thoughts and ideas aren't facts, we cannot change the articles based on our own desires. Try to be a little bit more careful because you may end up reported or blocked. I assume you're from Pakistan. I live in the United States, and I was born in Iran. Keivan.fTalk 06:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes I am from Pakistan, but I was born in New Haven, but how do you know that I'm from Pakistan?? And thank you so much for your kindness and support, I hope that you will continue guiding me. :) India Ka Raja (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@India Ka Raja: It was just a guess based on your contributions. I'll be glad to help you. Ask any question any time, and I will respond if I know the answer. You can also contact the administrators for more help. I wish you a good time on Wikipedia. ;) Keivan.fTalk 11:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I've not made any particular edits on Pakistani "artists" wikipedia, but I have contributed to the Indian "artists" articles. Andway, do you know that how can I revert edits?? And can I ask you a personal question?? What is your real name?? India Ka Raja (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@India Ka Raja: I know, but I think I saw something about Urdu in your edits, and I just guessed that you should be from Pakistan. Anyway, my name is Keivan, which is a Persian name. Keivan.fTalk 11:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@India Ka Raja: And about reverting edits, well it's not possible for you yet. You should give a request first, and then when your request is approved an administrator will grant you the permission to revert multiple edits. Keivan.fTalk 11:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Persian??Are you a Muslim?? I don't know how to thank you, I've been editing wikipedia since 2012, but no body mentored me, but now I think that finally I've got a mentor. in you. And do you speak Urdu?? India Ka Raja (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@India Ka Raja: As I said I was born in Iran, and I can speak Persian fluently, but unfortunately I cannot speak Urdu as it's a whole different language with a different grammar. And as you may know many Iranians are Muslims, thus I think I'm considered a Muslim as well based on my background. Although everyone's free in having his own religion here, don't worry. There are dozens of Muslim, Christian and Jewish users and also users with other religions that always help the new users generously. Keivan.fTalk 21:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained Removal of content.[edit]

Hi. Your this edit followed by this one in article Mahidevran, may be a good faith edit. Please always must add reason of removing anything (photo or content) that doesn't seems an act of vandalism or violation to WP policy. About the pictures removed, there is no doubt that those were indeed of Mahidevran's turbe, though I did see no source cited. You can always ask for citation rather than removing any photo, photos to the article makes them more interesting and adds significant details; So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the laws of locations where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Wikipedia because people find them objectionable or offensive. (See also: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.) I suggest you revert those changes and if inclined, remove them again but with "description" giving the reason of removal. (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@ That's not unexplained removal of content. Having multiple images of the same entrance to a tomb is totally unnecessary and only takes the space of the article. And pay more attention to the revision history next time because this edit isn't a removal of content. I just restored one of the two images that you had added and it's enough. There's no need for dozens of other images of the same tomb. And it's you who should read Wikipedia's policies. Calling a user's contributions vandalism without a clear reason can be considered an insult. And there was no need for an edit summary, as I was just removing a single image. We don't have to give a "lecture" for every single minor edit. Keivan.fTalk 22:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Please calm down, firstly, I did NOT add those images. And please read again I did not say you did the vandalism. I wrote "Please always must add reason of removing anything (photo or content) that doesn't seems an act of vandalism or violation to WP policy." And whilst I was about to remove the thread from your TP reasoning "Undid revision 757121274; So sorry I did not realize you moved the images and didn't remove it. Am removing my thread myself" but before I could do that I got your prompt response. Relax, nobody accusing you of vandalism. Mistakes happen. Cheers. (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Duchesses of Cornwall[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Duchesses of Cornwall has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Missing edit summaries[edit]

Hi Keivan.f. In glancing over your talk page, I see I'm not the first one to make this request: please use edit summaries. I can imagine it might seem like a hassle, but it really will save time and and alleviate confusion for other editors who watch the articles you edit. For instance, I watch Salman Rushdie, and I have no idea what you did here or here. I do see what you did here, and I can guess why you did it, but it would still be helpful not to have to guess. Thanks for considering my request. RivertorchFIREWATER 13:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch Hi. I use edit summaries actually but only for major edits. If you're really confused I can explain my contributions to you. I was trying to correct the mistakes and errors on this article. I removed the parameter "influences" here as it doesn't appear in the infobox. The other thing that I did was writing his native name in two different scripts which is used in Kashmiri. I also added the pronunciation of his name but I confess that I made a mistake here as I accidentally pasted the pronunciation in infobox. And as you may know the page is very popular among IPs. I was just restoring the previous version of the leading sentence. You can see it here. The IPs, as usual had removed some parts without a clear reason. Keivan.fTalk 19:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Right. I do appreciate your clarification, but please at least consider using summaries a bit more often. It takes me at least an hour on most days to go through my watchlist, but I would go a lot faster and more accurately if I didn't have to mouse over the diffs for so many unexplained edits. I'll probably remember you now, and if so, I'll know I don't need to check your edits. Unfortunately, watchlists don't yet have a "hide edits by trusted users" function, and I sometimes have a hard time remembering who is who. :( RivertorchFIREWATER 05:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Willie Lincoln Page[edit]

I will start out by stating that I do not know who edited the Willie Lincoln page that I have a problem with, thus I am not blaming you for it. I simply noticed you were the last one to update it. I will also point out I have no aspirations to become a user for Wikipedia. Anyway, it states that President Lincoln couldn't work for three weeks after his young child's death, yet this is utterly impossible. It is also completely false. I have personally read very reliable information from presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin that not only did he work but he would bring his work to Tad Lincoln's bedside while he was recovering from the same Typhoid fever. The information is in "Team of Rivals" book by Doris Kearns Goodwin. The last few pages of the fifteenth chapter. Like i said, I'm not blaming you for it, I would just like to see it to be fixed. 2001:5B0:243E:5B50:D46A:1CF4:292A:B004 (talk) 07:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@2001:5B0:243E:5B50:D46A:1CF4:292A:B004 Thanks for bringing it up. I will fix the problem. It would be better if you gave me the specific number of that page plus the book's ISBN, but I'm still able to remove that sentence as it's unsourced. Keivan.fTalk 08:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Diana, Princess of Wales (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Madonna and Vogue
Murat Boz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Madonna and Tarkan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neslihan Atagül, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Endless Love (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


If you want to change the subheading on Kösem you should seek consensus first. Do you know what haseki sultan means? Seraphimsystem (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Halime unamed daughter[edit]

Hi, I'm Faris Murad. I've been on Wikipedia and on a discussion about Halime Sultan's daughter some claim her name is Dilruba Sultan. Is this true? You're an expert that's why I asked you. Thanks Faris murad (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Faris murad: Hi Faris. Actually I have some general knowledge about the Ottoman dynasty. First of all, it's not important who claims what. Such claims should be based on solid and reliable sources as we should only include facts and verified information on all the articles. About Halime's daughter, as you have asked, the sources don't mention her name. As a result we have to obey what the sources say which means that we're not permitted to create names for historical figures. The reason that some people call her Dilruba is due to a TV series that has been airing in Turkey since 2015 and in that series this individual is called Dilruba. But a simple TV series can't be a reference for historical matters. Keivan.fTalk 23:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Ayşe & Kösem[edit]

Hello Keivan,how are you?About that edit of mine,I did it by mistake.What I actually wanted to change was the "She was the" you added.I think that including all of Ayşe's relations in one sentence is better,for this way the reader can easily understand it is Sultans of the Ottoman Empire the article is about.After the change you did,the fact that Ahmed was a ruler of the Ottoman Empire wasn't clearly stated,which meant one had to add that infornmation.Forgive me if I treat Wikipedia like literature this way,but I thought that using the phrase "Ottoman Empire" in two short sentences of direct sequence was repetation and didn't sound good. Chris Liak (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Chris Liak Hi. Thanks for explaining the situation. It's fine, I totally agree with you. Besides, you have created that article so I think you can edit it in every way that you like. If you think in that way the sentence sounds more meaningful, then feel free to change it again. Keivan.fTalk 09:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Mühteşem Yüzyıl Kösem is over[edit]

I thought you would like to know if you haven't heard already,Keivan.The show's producer Timur Savcı said himself that the series will end in episode 60 and there will be no season 3.I'm disappointed beyond words.This means that Kösem might actually have Murad killed as implied in episode 23 preview,which would be horrible and a huge divergence from history.Not to mention that only a handful of episodes will be left to cover the reigns of Ibrahim and his son.Unless the writing and directing teams have saved up all of their exquisite talent for this part of the plot,it will be a total mess.A disastrous,humiliating end for such a successful and beautiful saga.It is a shame. Chris Liak (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chris. Well, first of all thanks for informing me as I hadn't heard the news. Honestly, I'm a huge fan of historical TV series and just like you I'm so disappointed that there won't be a third season. Actually I think the scene that is shown in the preview for episode 23 is probably either just a dream or an attempt by Kösem to destroy her son which will end up unsuccessful. That's my personal opinion. Besides, the producers might decide to show the reign of Ibrahim and Mehmed as you said but I think that's not logically possible. Their eras were among the sensitive times that many major events happened in Kösem's life. So as you said they should either put all their efforts in creating a suitable ending for the series or probably finish it by the end of Murad's reign, which is again so disappointing; not telling the story until the very end of it. Keivan.fTalk 00:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)