User talk:MSincccc/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

y

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, MSincccc, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Gautam Adani

added a link pointing to Bloomberg

Meta Platforms

added a link pointing to Chris Cox

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Catherine, Princess of Wales, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kunal Ganjawala, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saathiya and Paisa Vasool.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Punctuation

There is always a space before an opening parenthesis in English. DrKay (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding this edit of yours; the idea is to include the highest name and title which each person holds/held in their own right in the infobox. Charles III is King of the United Kingdom in his own right. Diana, however, was not Princess of Wales in her own right, but by virtue of marriage. The prefix "lady" is also excluded, similar to how mothers of Elizabeth II, George VI, etc. have been listed, without the "princess" or "lady" prefix attached to their names. Keivan.f^Talk 23:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Hello, I'm Technopat. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Technopat (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I was going to add a citation for the source. Also I also changed the title to Marriage divorce and post divorce for the same reason MSincccc (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bill Gates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Prince Louis of Wales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Windsor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Civility

Please stop shouting in edit summaries and bossing everybody about. It's rude. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

First of all,sorry for any inconveniences caused to fellow Wikipedians. But the very aim behind using all capital instead of small letters for specific words or sentences in my edit summaries were to emphasize on that particular point and not to boss everyone around. I hope you understand and are not annoyed MSincccc (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Suraj Hua Maddham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alka.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Suraj Hua Maddham for deletion

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

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suraj Hua Maddham (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Overlinking terms

Have a look at WP:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should not be linked (WP:OVERLINK). It discourages linking common occupations, so please stop doing this. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello SNUGGUMS, WP:WP:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should not be linked states that "common occupations" need not be linked but Zuckerberg 's and Bezos' titles are specifically only for them at their workplaces. Further, linking "business magnate", "executive chairman", "controlling shareholder", etc. just once that too in the introductory sentence will only help in more relevancy and accuracy. I hope I have made myself clear but will not revert any of your edits unless you adhere to the above. Waiting for your reply. Regards MSincccc (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point: those things (except maybe "controlling shareholder") don't need linking in their opening sentences at all since many readers already recognize those terms. I fail to see how such links would "help in more relevancy and accuracy". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Earthshot Prize

Hello. I appreciate your efforts for improving the list of nominees for the 2023 awards, but bear in mind that the wording cannot be almost identical to the source (in this case CNN). This could result in copyright issues and you getting warnings and/or blocks. So that's why I tried to summarize it because it has to be in your own words. So, in the future please make sure you're not using pretty much every single word or description found within a web page to minimize the risk of getting tagged for copyvio. Keivan.f^Talk 14:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I did not use every single word as in the source. Also even I was summarizing it in my own words. Note the essential information you missed out upon and which were essential for the accuracy of the list. Hence I made the desired changes. Being accuarate doesn't result in copyright issues and me getting warnings and/or blocks. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I can point out to you word by word where some of the similarities are. And I can assure you that some administrators are not as lenient as you might think. Don't take it personally. You are making some valid contributions and it would be a shame if you were to get penalized for trivial issues such as this. Keivan.f^Talk 12:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I have made necessary changes. Now at least I hope that the administrators won't find me in a position to unnecessarily be penalized. As far as Polish Smog Alert's description is concerned I cannot modify it any more without adversely affecting the relevancy and accuracy of the sentence. If you can please go forward and do so. By the way, even I had left a message on your Talk Page. I hope I have cleared myself. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Help with Guillaume Pousaz article

Hi MSincccc. I work for Guillaume Pousaz and have declared my COI as per Wikipedia's policies. I noticed that you edited the page in the past, and was hoping that you'd be willing to take a look at the changes I have requested on the Talk page of the article. As you can see, these details will enhance the factual accuracy of the article, introduce new biographical information, and clarify some details. Thank you, Lauren at L Strategies (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Lazy reverts

I don't care what kind of content disputes you have with others (please use talk pages and not edit summaries to resolve them). Please don't be lazy when reverting. Removing citations and archive links from intermediary revisions is not only sloppy and bad practice, it's also annoying as all hell and ultimately deleterious. Please stop doing that! Thank you! -- dsprc ^[talk] 17:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The one putting up a matter for discussion on the Talk Pages should be Horse's Eye Back not me because he/she was the one to accuse "business magnate" as being puffery. By the way "business magnate" is accurate and I will take care of it in the future. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

You're missing the point. As stated, I do not care about these petty disputes… (You can have all the rope ya want!) Just don't be lazy and break stuff as noted above – go in and manually fidget about if it's so important. Happy Trails! -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

To clarify: edits such as those in this diff are but one example. To change a few words, you nuked all these Wayback Machine links which are vital for the project. Please don't do this stuff.

You don't have rollback rights… if you're going to grant yourself similar capabilities with Twinkle, please use them mindfully and responsibly (they're never supposed to be used in disputes regardless; and are subject to revocation should misuse persist). Thank you. -- dsprc ^[talk] 22:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dsprc I have clearly understood your point. I will be more mindful and responsible in the future while making similar changes and please note that I am not a guy who wants to create any sort of chaos. Also I am not misusing my Twinkle rights and will never do so also. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You have already misused your twinkle rights, if you would like to challenge what Dsprc and I are telling you instead of modifying your behavior its going to end with Twinkle being taken away... Have you read WP:TWINKLEABUSE? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dsprc@Horse Eye's Back I would like to have a peaceful solution to the problem. If I am at fault please explain it to me and discuss it with me at length as I am comparatively less experienced. I am a Wiki Gnome and I never prefer to violate any WP policy or abuse any right. Sorry for any inconveniences caused.Thank you MSincccc (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It is currently being explained and discussed... Have you read and understood TWINKLEABUSE? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I had read it previously also. By the way has a discussion being started? MSincccc (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back I don't intend to violate or abuse anything on Wikipedia. You will know that from my contributions. MSincccc (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It appears nowhere in the bodies of those articles... Did you check before reverting? If not they were lazy reverts in more ways than one. At the bare minimum if you want it in the lead it needs to be in the body. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back If you ever searched for these billionaires on Google or Bing you had see them being noted as "((nationality)) business magnate" not "businessperson". And then here on Wikipedia, we try to be as accurate as possible. I hope you understand. Please put up the matter for discussion on Bill Gates' talk page for that reason before further changing "business magnate" to "businessperson". Google describes Bill Gates and other people noted as "business magnates". Businessperson is a general term and somewhat misleading. Business magnate is more commonly used, accurate and to the point. MSincccc (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Google and Bing are not reliable sources, also note that they appear to be quoting wikipedia making it entirely circular. Note that if it were more commonly used it would be used at least once in the articles about these figures but it isn't... Its only in the lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Larry Page, Bill Gates and Sergey Brin being inactive at their primary businesses and now indulging themselves in various other businesses can be termed as "businesssperson". But at least Zuckerberg and Musk being active in their respective businesses and that too on a large scale should be termed as "magnates". Using "businessperson" for Zuckerberg and Musk is misleading at least for these two and also Jeff Bezos who is also active with Amazon. Also please don't make comments such as "outrageous". I hope we can arrive at a peaceful resolution and not engage ourselves in further edit wars. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Thats an interesting opinion, but we don't insert our personal opinions into articles. Do you have an answer for Bing/Google not being RS and for magnate not being used in the body of any of these articles? Also you appear to have continued edit warring even though this falls under WP:BLP, a massive mistake. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Well I was not inserting my personal opinions. And for your second question you will know that Google and Bing are two very large search engines and that "magnate" sounds better. How do you find "businessperson" better for active executives like Musk, Zuckerberg and Bezos and what is the difference between the two terms? Please justify clearly. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Search engines are not WP:RS, it does appear to be your personal opinion that magnate sounds better. Do you understand what makes something a reliable source and the very strict restrictions we place on BLP content? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Sorry for any inconveniences caused. If you think I have made any massive mistakes please fix it. I do not want to lose my Twinkle rights and I had be more careful in the future. MSincccc (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 07:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@DrKay Thank you for your appreciation. I have realized the fact that some of the edits labelled as "vandalism" by me were actually not. For instance, my most recent reverts on the page Prince Louis of Wales were with respect to disruptive editing and addition of unsourced material. I am still learning and would look forward to receiving advice from experienced users such as you. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Catherine, Princess of Wales

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Catherine, Princess of Wales you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim O'Doherty -- Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Obvious grammar corrections

I don't have to take obvious corrections to grammar to the talk page: "The couple three children" is ungrammatical gibberish, which you know full well as you've now corrected it yourself after I pointed it out to you. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

"I am not being aggressive." Try being on the receiving end. I warned you before about your tone: [1]. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford And I know that. I wanted you to know that "I am not being aggressive." And in future, I expect that you will not have any problems as to my attitude. I have stopped shouting in my edit sumaries and I hope that you will be good to me and formal given that I am way younger than you. Also I work for accuracy and usually try to keep a pleasing tone. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Catherine, Princess of Wales

The article Catherine, Princess of Wales you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales for comments about the article, and Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim O'Doherty -- Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Article

Hello! Your submission of William, Prince of Wales at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sionk (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

As the nominator, you'll get a message on your Talk page when the DYK is published. Keep an eye on your Watchlist and you'll see when it is promoted to the preparation page (or whatever it is called). Sionk (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

P.S. if I were you I would delete your question at the bottom of the nomination. It may make the DYK admins think there is an unresolved issue and delay it's progress. Sionk (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sionk Fixed it. Sorry for that. Regards MSincccc (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Middleton (and GA)

Regarding the recent changes, please bear in mind that Catherine was commonly known as Kate Middleton up until 2011 at least. Thus, the maiden surname should be used when covering her pre-wedding era. The same is true for Camilla, Sarah, Sophie, and Meghan. The Queen Mother and Diana can be counted as exceptions due to their aristocratic background which meant that they were commonly referred to as Lady Elizabeth and Lady Diana before their respective marriages.

Also, I'm glad to see that you have taken on the task of reviewing Camilla's article. It is a highly visible article about a prominent individual. As I said on my talk page, I hope you are thoroughly familiar with WP:GACR and WP:GAN/I#R1 (especially WP:RGA and WP:GACN). If at any stage you are unsure about something, please seek the help of a mentor. Don't rush anything but if you are free of exams and other responsibilities, I wouldn't mind if we wrap this up sooner rather than later (i.e. we don't need to drag it on for 4 weeks). Best. Keivan.f^Talk 23:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f I knew it but thought that using her first name would be more viable. I have understood my error. By the way, is it true that the name "Kate Middleton" appeared on Catherine's article prior to her wedding? You have been working on the article since 2011 and hence this question. Also please do join the Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty/William, Prince of Wales task force. Its objective as I mentioned on your talk page is to get William's article to FA and I hope you want to. So both of us need the comments from peer editors. Hence the task force. Regards MSincccc (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the article was titled "Kate Middleton" prior to her marriage as that was WP:COMMONNAME (see this revision from Jan 2011). I will join the task force; I see no harm in joining such groups. Keivan.f^Talk 02:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f But then was it not an anomaly that when a user suggested the name to be included on the married Catherine's article he was denied. He should have been but why was it there earlier? What's wrong with saying "Catherine Middleton", her actual name prior to her wedding?

Regards MSincccc (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It's just prior to her wedding sources mostly used "Kate", but since her wedding she herself has personally chosen to be known officially as "Catherine" and MOS:IDENTITY has to be taken into account in these instances. Keivan.f^Talk 02:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Keivan.f Would you mind joining the task force now itself? I got permission from DrKay as well. MSincccc (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Done. By the way, you did not need permission for this, just so that you know; but it was nice of you to ask them. Keivan.f^Talk 05:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK for William, Prince of Wales

On 31 December 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William, Prince of Wales, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Prince William reportedly used the name "Steve" while studying at the University of St Andrews to avoid attracting attention from the media? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William, Prince of Wales. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, William, Prince of Wales), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Catherine, Princess of Wales

On 9 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Catherine, Princess of Wales, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Catherine, Princess of Wales (pictured), is a keen amateur photographer and the patron of the Royal Photographic Society, and has taken many official photographs of her children? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Catherine, Princess of Wales. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Catherine, Princess of Wales), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 38,554 views (1,606.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 77th British Academy Film Awards

On 19 February 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 77th British Academy Film Awards, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 05:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Awards for Catherine, Princess of Wales

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Catherine, Princess of Wales (estimated annual readership: 2,500,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring Catherine, Princess of Wales (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Middleton 1) to Good Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

Hey man im josh (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Princess Michael

I presume you can redo the archiving of sources at Princess Michael of Kent by pushing a button on a bot. It was mixed up with a lot of other edits that were difficult to disentangle, so I just undid the lot. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hi, I wasn't aware of what you said here. So firstly, I wanted to congratulate you on your contributions. That's very impressive and quite an achievement of someone of your age. Secondly, not knowing this, I may have been too harsh in some of my comments to you over the months, for which I apologise. Thirdly, as a result, I just wanted to make a couple of suggestions to you. These are just some recommendations - not complaints - which I only mention to make things go more smoothly for you. I've seen you make some remarks similar to this a few times. It can often have an adverse reaction from some editors if someone claims some special or extra status for particular articles. This is explained in WP:OWN. It's best to avoid that. A second point is around this post. There can also be an adverse reaction around appearing to be too concerned about getting credit - it's related to, but not exactly the same as, WP:HATC. It gives the impression that an editor's main aim isn't the improvement of the encyclopedia. I'm sure that's not the case but it's best not to inadvdertantly give that impression. Good luck. DeCausa (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Catherine, Princess of Wales is older than my mother and also I am no older than Prince George of Wales. So I strive to maintain politeness in my edit summaries, and I've made substantial contributions to her article, successfully guiding it through a GA process. However, given my young age and potential to do more in real life than here , I was recently contemplating retirement. I believe I can contribute more meaningfully in other aspects of life. I always assume good faith, and I apologize for any unintended hurt caused to anyone. Maybe I can give a shout-out to you all in future.

Regards and goodbye for the time being @DeCausa, @Keivan.f, @Tim O'Doherty, @DrKay and @Rosbif73. MSincccc (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is an age limit when it comes to contributing to articles. I just suggest you continue remaining civil but develop a tougher skin as well. All of us get criticized from time to time and there is no merit in abandoning the discussion entirely. You'll get used to it as time goes by. Keivan.f^Talk 16:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Writing articles here won't get me as far as I desire in real life. As I said, I will try to give a shout out to you all if possible later on. Don't retard back then. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Obviously it will not. We all have our own lives and ambitions. We just try to contribute to topics that interest us here and there. Best of luck to you in your endeavors. Keivan.f^Talk 16:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Few years later you will be probably editing my article alongside Charlotte's. XD Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Or you'll be editing mine. You'll never know. Keivan.f^Talk 16:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You are (Redacted) already @Keivan.f. We are both children presently unlike you. I had edit you but not alongside hers. Let’s not become foes for that reason. There is Leonor, Princess of Asturias by the way as well. She is way older than me but might be not very young in comparison to your age. The other day, I found some predictions regarding Charlotte's future on The Express UK. Check it out at your pleasure. But remember that we should not become foes for that reason. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay. This is turning weird. Remember, we are not on a forum. If you become famous/infamous for whatever reason good for you. And I'm in no competition with any royal/non-royal person. I just wished you luck in your endeavors, whatever they may be. Keivan.f^Talk 17:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Kate Middleton (free-diver)

The page is located at Kate Middleton (free-diver), not Kate Middleton (freediver). If you want to move Kate Middleton (free-diver) back to Kate Middleton (freediver), I won't revert, but I think that page titles should be consistent. The Kate Middleton (free-diver) article was previously moved by Binksternet to include a hyphen, supposedly because it's British English. Malerisch (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Malerisch But another user previously made an edit which excluded the hyphen and he had also moved the other page. I had suggest you go through the article history for that reason. Anyways, the present state might be preferred given the article's been under significant focus for the past few days. Do reach out in case you need assistance in future. Regards MSincccc (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

MSincccc Are you talking about this edit? It looks like the Kate Middleton (free-diver) article has always had a hyphen; the same user that made that edit also moved the article, but was promptly reverted. My edit would just complete the revert. There is no reason to keep the needless redirect. Malerisch (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that edit.@Malerisch Regards MSincccc (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Million Award for William, Prince of Wales

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring William, Prince of Wales (estimated annual readership: 4,160,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ivanka Trump

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ivanka Trump you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of CtasACT -- CtasACT (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ivanka Trump

The article Ivanka Trump you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ivanka Trump for comments about the article, and Talk:Ivanka Trump/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of CtasACT -- CtasACT (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Princess Charlotte of Wales (born 2015)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Princess Charlotte of Wales (born 2015) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim O'Doherty -- Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Princess Charlotte of Wales (born 2015)

The article Princess Charlotte of Wales (born 2015) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Princess Charlotte of Wales (born 2015) for comments about the article, and Talk:Princess Charlotte of Wales (born 2015)/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim O'Doherty -- Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Million Award

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Ivanka Trump (estimated annual readership: 1,824,260) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prince George of Wales

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Prince George of Wales you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AndrewPeterT -- AndrewPeterT (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Your nomination of Sherlock Holmes for GA

Hi, the agreed rules for GA nominations require the nominator to have been involved significantly in editing the article. You have run IABot to rescue sources, and have made a few small touch-up edits very recently. This does not reach the threshold for significant editing, so I've removed the nomination as basically a drive-by. Removal just treats the nomination as not existing, it isn't a fail. Hope this is clear. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap The rules require you to be either among the top-five authors or to have contributed to more than 10 % of the article. I satisfy both the criteria. Anyways I would have made any changes the reviewer would have recommended. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Found 5 edits by MSincccc on Sherlock Holmes (0.05% of the total edits made to the page)

   04:09, 27 March 2024 (diff | hist) . . (+1) . . Sherlock Holmes (/* Family and early life */Fix)
   04:06, 27 March 2024 (diff | hist) . . (-1) . . Sherlock Holmes (/* Practice */Fix)
   04:05, 27 March 2024 (diff | hist) . . (+0) . . Sherlock Holmes (His)
   04:05, 27 March 2024 (diff | hist) . . (-23) . . Sherlock Holmes (Fix)
   04:28, 19 February 2024 (diff | hist) . . (+18,777) . . Sherlock Holmes (Rescuing 105 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5)

The tool says otherwise. Unless of course you've changed your username, and have in fact edited the article extensively; in which case, I'm sorry, couldn't have known, and feel free to resubmit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap Can I renominate please? I have the authorship and I will do my best to make as many constructive edits as possible in the coming days so as to make it a GA-table article. Expecting a positive response from you. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

No, that would be quite inappropriate; you are nowhere remotely near being a significant author of this article. I'll post a notice on the GAN discussion page now so that those responsible are aware of the situation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Here's the problem, MSincccc: the point of the rules is that an actual review is going to examine everything, including both the online sources and the book by Klinger. A review is going to examine things like the permissions of the images, the fairness of coverage, etc. Your major contribution to the article was running a bot. That doesn't inspire us with confidence that you know the subject or could respond to a reviewer's inquiries. Nominators at the GA level are expected to make a bunch of fixes, if needed, and we don't need our time wasted by Wikipedians who are not up to the task, which is why this rule was created. Gaming the system is going to further sour the community on your already-unpleasant reputation among editors. Even if somehow a GA review passes without need for your input, no one would consider your claim of a GA legitimate. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Chris troutman Neither am I the kind of user to break the rules nor was I trying to game the system. Further, I am fine with @Chiswick Chap having withdrawn my GA nomination for Sherlock Holmes as I myself feel that I had not significantly contributed to the article except for running a bot.

However, my GA nomination for Prince George of Wales should not be considered a drive-by as I am one of the top five authors of the article as well as a frequent editor (one of the top 10).

Also I never claimed that the "rules did not apply to me". I hope you all understand. I am a good faith editor who always tries to abide by the guidelines and have never picked up any sort of dispute with another editor. I always try to resolve all issues with peace in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. MSincccc (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Karlie Kloss

The article Karlie Kloss you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Karlie Kloss for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Schierbecker -- Schierbecker (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of subject's name from caption

Hi there. I don't believe we've interacted. I'm KyleJoan. Nice to formally meet you. I wanted to bring to your attention that this edit is not compatible with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions. The guideline clearly states that the subject should be clearly identified. In addition, not every person reads an article from the top or even knows who the subject is. I see that you've done this in other articles, but I'll leave it to their watchers to examine whether this type of edit is appropriate elsewhere. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 02:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@KyleJoan I did this in other articles as their contributors felt that it was most accurate to do so. Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying other users have instructed you to remove subjects' names from captions? Or do you just mean you've never been reverted for this type of edit? KyleJoan^talk 03:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I have been reverted only once for this type of an edit. Furthermore, for the articles to which I have majorly contributed, the editors prefer this type of captions. But I would not be making similar changes to the page(s) you are talking about. Hence , I hope we can close this discussion. Have a great day. Regards MSincccc (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joshua Kushner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Livingstone.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Karlie Kloss

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Karlie Kloss you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Schierbecker -- Schierbecker (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately I had to QF this. Please see my comments on the nomination page. I would be happy to re-review this in the future after the main issues are addressed (chiefly verifiability). If you have any questions, please leave them on the talk page. Thank you! Schierbecker (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Schierbecker Well I made the necessary changes suggested by you and included a few reliable sources. I have also worked on the prose and await your feedback on the changes to be made in lead. I would not mind it if you could remove the two Forbes citations you mentioned in your previous GA comments.

Just one suggestion though from my side. Would you please wait for my response to your suggestions in future before failing the nomination? I hope that running a review for a week as such (all my previous nominations lasted at least 3 days including one which almost took a month) would not be an issue. Furthermore, I am quite active. Hence, please wait next time for me to make any future changes to the article. It would be greatly appreciated if this could be passed as GA this time." Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I quick-failed the nomination because it was not ready. If you would like a second opinion, you can follow the instructions on WP:GAN/I#2O. I would not encourage you to do that. It is a long way off. Schierbecker (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I verified the Teen Vogue information through a new citation. I hope you are satisfied @Schierbecker. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

MSincccc, you are misunderstanding the purpose of {{failed verification}}. The Teen Vogue source does not say it was her modeling shoot. As I said before, the issues with the page go beyond what I said in the review. Schierbecker (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Schierbecker I might have made an error there. Would you mind helping me fix the issues with the page, atleast this one and the ones with the lead? I would greatly appreciate it. By the way, the most recent "failed verification" tag is with regard to information about her sisters but that is covered in the corresponding citation. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I will be happy to continue flagging issues for your attention. However, I haven't got much time to help you with this. I am busy with my own work. Also if I contributed substantially to this I wouldn't be able to review it in the future. Schierbecker (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Schierbecker You need not necessarily review it in future. It will be more appreciated if you can help me out with fixing the shortcomings in the article. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Schierbecker The EthniCelebs citation does cover Kloss' ancestry. How come you added a failed verification tag beside it now? Looking forward to your response. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prince George of Wales

The article Prince George of Wales you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Prince George of Wales for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AndrewPeterT -- AndrewPeterT (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Talk:Prince George of Wales/GA2

Hello MSincccc, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Talk:Prince George of Wales/GA2, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A3: invalid criterion; not an article and not blank. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ivanvector Well but that review has been abandoned by the reviewer. Hence I upon advice tried to delete the page. No comments were except for the opening ones. Looking forward to knowing from you. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The criterion A3 is for articles that have no meaningful content. The GA review is not an article, therefore the criterion does not apply. Besides, an abandoned GA review should be closed and archived, not deleted. If you think there is a good reason why this review in particular should be deleted anyway, please see the instructions to start a deletion discussion at miscellany for deletion. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Follow the instructions at WP:GAN/I#N4a if the review is abandoned. Keivan.f^Talk 01:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prince George of Wales

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Prince George of Wales you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim O'Doherty -- Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Karlie Kloss

The article Karlie Kloss you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Karlie Kloss for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prince George of Wales

The article Prince George of Wales you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Prince George of Wales for comments about the article, and Talk:Prince George of Wales/GA3 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim O'Doherty -- Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on William, Prince of Wales

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page William, Prince of Wales, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move for Twitter article

Your opinion on this issue is requested

You have been tagged to this conversation because you may have previously participated in similar discussions and there has been a notable development. Please consider sharing your views.
𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 06:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)