User talk:Keivan.f/Archive 5

Nomination for deletion of Template:Duchesses of Cornwall
Template: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
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. Rivertorch  FIRE WATER   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.f  Talk 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. :( Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   05:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Willie Lincoln Page
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.f  Talk 08:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10
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
 * added links pointing to Madonna and Vogue


 * Murat Boz
 * 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
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). 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)

Edits
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
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)
 * 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.f  Talk 23:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Ayşe & Kösem
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.f  Talk 09:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Mühteşem Yüzyıl Kösem is over
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.f  Talk 00:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Gülfem
Hi. Gülfem's problem is discussed by Peirce on the pages cited in the article : she appears in the registries as a important member of the harem, therefore some authors have guessed she was a concubine of Suleyman's, but Peirce doesn't agree for some reasons and guesses she might have been more probably the stewardess of the harem. I don't think she appears in any historical narrative source on Suleyman's reign, and Topkapi registries were intended to record payments to certains eligible persons, not to give biographical details about them, so I doubt we can have more (real) informations. The source given in the article is not published by any scientific publisher, and does not rely on solid references ; its author uses a high-sounding name (princess Woronzow-Daschkow ) and may be an imposter, like the so called Melike Chimay whose blog is the source of much of the pseudohistory about Mahidevran.--Phso2 (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @Phso2. Alright. Thanks for explaining everything. I'm going to remove that sentence which states that Gülfem was a wife of Bayezid, but perhaps it should be mentioned in the article that there are speculations about her being a wife/concubine of Suleiman. Keivan.f  Talk 12:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems that it's already mentioned there that she might have been a concubine of Suleiman. Keivan.f  Talk 12:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you help verify translations of articles from
Hello,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from to English Wikipedia? This would involve evaluating a translated article on English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great.

All you have to do, is compare the English article to the, and mark it "Pass" or "Fail" (templates Pass and Fail may be useful). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then marking it "Pass", that's even better, but it isn't required.)

If you can help, please let me know. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hafsa Sultan (daughter of Selim I)
Hello, I have deprodded the article Hafsa Sultan (daughter of Selim I). The article was discussed at AfD a few months ago which makes it permanently ineligible for deletion via prod. I only did this for procedural reasons, and have no opinion one way or the other on the merits of the deletion nomination. If you still wish to pursue deletion, feel free to open another AfD.

For future reference, before prodding an article it is helpful to check the article's talk page and history to see if it has been prodded or discussed at AfD in the past. Also, if there has been any recent discussion on the talk page, this may help you decide whether deletion is uncontroversial. Thanks, &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 02:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Kuyabribri. Actually I'm the person who had nominated it for deletion a few months ago, but I didn't think that it would make it ineligible for deletion via prod. Anyway, as the result of the previous discussion was "no consensus" I will nominate it again for deletion by opening another AfD discussion. Thanks for informing me about the situation. Keivan.f  Talk 03:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Murad' daughters
Hey Keivan what's up? You are right there shouldn't be an edit war over this issue. The thing is that most of the characters of the show correspond roughly, at the very least, to some historical figure. Not all real-life details are included in their story but they do have things in common with their historic counterparts. Hümașah and Fahriye have nothing in common with Hüma Sultan and Fahri Sultan respectively, not their parentage, not the dates and numbers of their marriages, not even their names. They might have similar names, but that is not enough for us to conclude that they are inspired from those two historical figures. So they should be considered entirely fictional. Chris Liak (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleting article
Can you please nominate the article List of consorts of the Ottoman Sultans for deletion. Because I find it useless as the Ottoman Sultans did not have one but a number of Empresses at a single time, and we also lack information about them, like there names, where did they belonged to, and other information. Retrieverlove (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. Well, I just don't see enough reasons to nominate this list for deletion, and the other users might probably oppose such suggestion. You provided two reasons and based on them you believe that the list is eligible for deletion, while I think it's not. First of all, a list doesn't necessarily have to be complete. Dozens of uncompleted lists exist on Wikipedia, thus it means that an incomplete list can still be considered notable. Another thing is that polygamy was something common among the historic monarchs, especially the Muslim ones and we already have lists that include the names of multiple consorts who had all been married to a single ruler. As such type of lists is something common, the nomination could be objected, and I also believe that the list can remain. Keivan.f  Talk 11:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Leigh Kennedy
Hello Keivan.f. I would like to know more about your edit here. What is your source of Leigh Kenedy and Christopher Priest not being married any more. And I don't understand the tense you used for her twins. Doesn't she have them any more? Are they dead? Why the past tense? Regards, --Gereon K. (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. The truth is that I hadn't payed attention to the structure of that sentence as I had copied it from "Christopher Priest", so sorry about that. Regarding the sources, I have to say that right now I'm trying to find a reliable one on the internet but I'd be glad if you could also look for it as I'm a little bit busy with another article. Thanks. Keivan.f  Talk 00:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I rephrased the sentence a little, according to http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/priest_christopher --Gereon K. (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Mass changes to GoT articles.
Per WP:FAIT, your edits to multiple Game of Thrones articles to make them conform to a TV MOS change not discussed within the project are inappropriate. I've reverted you on Season 1, because that article passed FLC with those actor names embedded. However, what is most appropriate is for you to undo all your changes, rather than others' having to clean up. Once you've successfully rolled back your edits, please start a discussion in a relevant place before making large numbers of disputed edits. Just because something has been inserted into the MOS does not mean it's uncontroversial: most editors don't read the MOS and are unaware of changes proposed or implemented by a small group of MOS-interested Wikipedians until an unsuspecting user like yourself assumes that implementing mass changes would be uncontroversial. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This should have initially been posted on the article's talk page, not Keivan.f's personal talk page. Anyways, since you've started it here...
 * Given that Keivan.f removed it once and I removed it once, and you've reverted twice, I really don't think that you're in the position to be accusing others of edit-warring. You stated that Featured Content trumps LOCALCONSENSUS at a MOS - this is not a local consensus, this is a guideline, which you then tried to force your opinion on by removing the content you disagreed with in said guideline. Very poor faith on your part there.
 * Clearly there had been a discussion to implement WP:TVCAST; in fact, there was a recent discussion that overhauled it with updated content, so it is the reviewing editor's fault that they were not aware that the article did not comply with the guidelines. Implementing it is not Keivan.f's fault. Besids, WP:FAIT is an information page, not a guideline or policy.
 * Simply because the article has been promoted to a featured article, that does not mean that edits and guidelines cannot be implemented, unless you would care to point me in the direction that says it does, to an actual guideline or policy? And as I stated in my edit summary, the inclusion or exclusion of the names of the actors were not brought up in any of the reviews for the article - that includes the one peer review, the two Featured Article reviews, as well as the Good Article review. This means that you have no consensus to revert the removal; I recommend you start gaining that as soon as possible. --  Alex TW 06:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I've copied this discussion to so that it can be discussed publicly. --  Alex TW 06:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that ASoIaF Wikiproject would be a better place to decide whether to accept or reject the changes suggested by the MOS. I've started a discussion on the MOS clause again at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television.
 * If you want to use silence argue against my interpretation of good/featured article status defining status quo rather than MOS updates, I'll note that there are tens of thousands of editors who actively edit television articles, and I only counted seven who participated in that phase of the MOS update discussion. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I noticed that discussion. Cheers for the comment, love to "insert" myself into situations. Or contribute to articles as an active editor. Either way, same thing, savvy? --  Alex TW 07:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that I have to ask for a permission when I'm doing something that is a part of our guidelines. By the way it seems that, apparently, you're the only one who's opposing these changes. It seems that IVORK and AlexTheWhovian also share my opinion. By the way, it's also possible to find an error on a featured article, and such errors have to be corrected. I haven't read anything about ignoring errors or mistakes on featured or good articles merely because they're prompted to a higher level of quality. In conclusion, I only followed the guidelines and policies. If the users wish to oppose the my changes, then the guidelines should be challenged as well, though it has already been pointed out that there was a recent consensus to maintain them. Keivan.f  Talk 07:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Moved BACK from Talk:Game of Thrones (season 1) by Jclemens
 * Keivan.f, your first edit was anything but wrong! Absolutely, you can feel free to implement an MOS change when you see a difference between the MOS and the current article.  Where you went wrong, in my opinion, is changing 50+ articles (I think the real number is close to 80, but I lost count) in the same way without asking anyone if the editors liked it that way.  I hold the editors who updated the MOS:TVPLOT section to reflect their own opinions of what looks nice rather than the current, common practice of Wikipedia editors responsible for this mess. Mind you, I don't think "avoid" is a license to make wholesale changes, but again, that's a wording issue with the folks who put together the MOS update. I thank you for respecting my request and beginning to undo the changes until a discussion actually happens. Jclemens (talk) 07:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We're basing this on an WP:ILIKEIT sort of argument now? That's not how it works, guidelines are how articles work. Keivan.f, you should not have to revert your edits, and Jclemens should revoke their false accusation of edit-warring when they reverted twice against two different editors. --  Alex TW 07:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * All of the WP:MOS are "I like it", made by small groups of MOS-interested editors who believe they improve the encyclopedia by controlling how others write articles. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep saying "controlling how others write articles" about other editors, see the reception it gets you. Interesting how you dodged the edit-warring. Nice. --  Alex TW 07:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I reverted my contributions as I truly don't have enough time (and probably energy!) to engage in multiple edit wars, especially when that edit wars are about to occur on good articles. So I decided to back off and wait for the results of that ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. As soon as I realize that the results and consensus of that discussion favors our side, I'll again restore the former versions of those articles which were based on the guidelines. Keivan.f  Talk 07:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Always good to see another editor work in good faith, instead of constantly reverting for their revision. Hopefully the discussion will be over sooner rather than later. --  Alex TW 08:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This conversation forked all over the place. But I just wanted to thank you for taking the initiative to remove the cast member names from the plot sections of all those articles.  I made similar changes to the first two episode articles this season and had been discussing them on the individual article Talk pages.  I participated in the conversation on the MOS:TVPLOT Talk page, and I hope it will bear out a consensus that this information belongs elsewhere in episode articles.  --DavidK93 (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Marriage template
Please note that per Template talk:Marriage/Archive 4, the "widowed" function of the marriage template is no longer recommended. Many thanks, DrKay (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Your edits
Hello. What's your policy-based justification for the large number of edits you've made in the past couple of days to infoboxes? And where did you seek and receive a consensus to make mass changes? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I haven't made any major edit to any article during the past days. In fact, what I was trying to do was condensing the amount of useless and unnecessary information that has been added to multiple info boxes. As you're an experienced user, I think you also agree that the info box is not the right place for including the names of children and relatives who are not notable, and that's the general method and guideline that has been used on numerous featured and good articles. Such information could be easily found in the body of an article where more elaborate details are available. Keivan.f  Talk 09:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Emperor of Japan
Hi, I believe the Emperor of Japan was known as His Imperial Majesty before WW2. I read most articles before WW2 or there is some articles before His Majesty (Akihito)'s enthronement, the article call the Emperor His Imperial Majesty. There is little article call the Emperor as His Majesty before WW2 or before His Majesty' s enthronement. 221.121.253.34 (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You may be right, but the official website of the Imperial Household Agency refers to all the emperors and empresses as His/Her Majesty Emperor/Empress X. The actual title in Japanese is Heika, and it has been used for all the emperors, including Akihito. So, if the official website translates it to "Majesty", then we should go with that. Keivan.f  Talk 18:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales
Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of two sections of the article Diana, Princess of Wales has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much. Keivan.f  Talk 02:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Meghan Markle
Hi ALARM BELLS! Please check that the Ancestry section of Meghan Markle  page  has been  removed. Many editors  feel it should remain. The major UK  and  USA  newspapers and TV  networks  have  done BIG  features on Markle's proven  and published  black and white - noble  and royal - ancestry. It is clear that the Markle family themselves are aware of their own descent from early  founders of New Hampshire   and royalty  itself. This is  racism;  refusing to  acknowledge this  woman's  ancestry on both sides in any detail. Please help. Srbernadette (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Srbernadette. I had just noticed that the ancestry section was removed without a proper discussion and I was about to mention this on the talk page, but gladly another user has already started a survey, and I intend to vote in favor of keeping that section. As she's expected to become a high ranking royal, her ancestry and background seem to be noteworthy. Keivan.f  Talk 02:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have never taken Wikipedia too seriously,  but this  is really  an oversight!  I think the editor is  pretty pig-headed  and may not change her/his mind. I guess we will have to  remove  all ancestry  sections from  the pages of the "royal  ladies (who once were commoners)"  if  this editor has their way.  ThanksSrbernadette (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As discussed in considerable earnest on the Meghan Markle Talk page, I have constructed a factually correct and a very  concise sub-section dealing with Markle's confirmed maternal  and paternal ancestry. I have eliminated all  doubtful  ancestral  references.  I very much hope this pleases you and other editors. Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that the reference to the noble descent of  Capt.  Christopher Hussey  is  confusing  and make the  average reader  become sceptical  of the whole paragraph's  claims -  including the Edward III bit.  The daily  Mail also reported  incorrect  information about Markel  having "Bowes"  blood  and this a  shared ancestry  with Prince Harry.  This is now -  we know -  FALSE news  and  geneaology   but we do  not need to  mention it  on  this page on Wikipedia. Please get rid of the reference to another false bit of information - the Hannah  Furness article  (UK  Daily Telegraph) {Cheers 203.132.68.1 (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is the proven shared  ancestry  -  as researched and widely  reported  by Gary Boyd  Roberts  of the New England Historic Genealogical Society -   of   Markel  and Prince  Harry. -


 * I will discuss on article talk page, where's the proof of this ancestry? Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The reference to Prince Harry and Meghan as confirmed by G. B. Roberts has been placed in the "Engagement" section  as advised by  User:Surtsicna.  I hope that this editor does not change their mind. We need to be insistent  that this is NOT  "trivial"  information. I would prefer a separate Ancestry  section - it makes so  much more  sense.  Cheers 203.132.68.1 (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note the User:Surtsicna keeps taking out Gary Boyd Roberts research about the common ancestors of Markle and Harry. This editor dismisses Roberts work as trivia!!! Please keep an eye out.2001:8003:4FE9:1B00:CB5:79B5:AB89:F887 (talk) thanks —Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to   explain  to  user:Surtsicna why her  weak argument   about  Angelina  Jolie  -   when it comes to  the well-publicised  shared  ancestry of  Markle   and Harry  is  absolutely  not  trivia: "We have tried to  find   published  evidence of Brad Pitt and Angelina  Jolie  both  sharing common  ancestors -  e.g.  Madeleine Ernard and her carpenter husband Zacharie Cloutier (1617-1708) -  but there is none. On the other hand, the Washington Post,  New York Times  and other major  global  media  outlets  have published the  proven  SHARED  ancestry  between Markle  and Prince Harry.  The couple's  common  ancestor - Sir Philip  Wentworth and his  wife -  were the great grandparents of  Jane Seymour,  wife of Henry VIII.  This fact will remain  relevant to both Harry's  ancestry  and Markle's.  That is why the major global papers,  television  networks  and historians  will  continue to refer to  this information. Please accept this."

Please keep an eye on this  page  so that important information is  not  removed   Cheers 101.182.160.40 (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When I first removed it, you had not edited for 3 days. Hours after I removed it, you reappered to reinsert it. This time, you had not edited for 5 days, but reappered within hours of the removal to reinsert the trivia. That (and the broader fact that your sole area of interest on Wikipedia is Meghan Markle's ancestry) is, quite frankly, very suspicious. Surtsicna (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Marie of Évreux does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! Eric talk 14:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)