It is 5:22 PM where this user lives. ^(Purge)

@Keivan.f I don’t want to take up too much of your time, but could you suggest at least one reliable secondary source for Meghan’s article? I doubt Endgame by Omid Scobie would be accepted. Looking forward to your thoughts. Best regards! MSincccc (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No that is not an acceptable source due to his close ties to the subject which has compromised his objectivity. I'll see what I can come up with and let you know later. Keivan.f^Talk 17:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f The article Royal Foundation has been nominated for GA by me with your name as co-nominator, given your significant contributions to the article. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot guarantee active participation during the nomination process cause I'm extremely busy this month but I'll skim through it whenever I can. Good luck. Keivan.f^Talk 14:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As of 2018, Coach Core has had over 400 apprentices and graduates across 10 locations.^[1]

The above information is currently supported only by a PDF document. Could you let me know if any reliable secondary sources mention it? MSincccc (talk) 06:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with having a PDF as a reference if the source is reliable. But in this case if it is some secondary source that you're after I'm afraid you might have to do some digging. I'll see if I can help but can't give any promises. Keivan.f^Talk 18:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this article, a guide on writing featured articles from 2008. Could you read point number 5 under "Do not write about" in the "What subject" section?

Living members of the British royal family – not only is it naff to be interested in such people, but you will also attract oppose votes from others who do not share your adoration or respect. This extends to any member of the British aristocracy, except for Lord Lucan and that peer who was once a cabinet minister but had to resign after cavorting with call girls.

Not that it affects the chances of promotion of any of the articles we are currently working on, but I thought you might like to take a look. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the personal and subjective opinion of that user, which they are of course entitled to. Any article can be promoted into GA and FA status as long as it has high quality sources, is neutral and well-written. That could range from the page on Adolf Hitler to the one on Mother Teresa. Keivan.f^Talk 17:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could the opinions on Catherine’s current attitude, as expressed by multiple authors in this article, be briefly incorporated into the "Public image" section of her article? Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the article does not work, but regardless of that I would not use People magazine for analysis on a person's patterns of behavior. You need a more solid source than that. Keivan.f^Talk 17:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to the GA review discussion for the article Royal Foundation as a co-nominator. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look if I find any spare time. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 17:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please assist me in addressing the following suggestions:

• Given the ... star power ... of Harry and Meagan, can anything more be said about the circumstances under which they left the Foundation?
• "Invictus Games". To be frank, that's the only one of these I've heard of as a Yank, and associated of course with Harry. As far as I can see, the article doesn't make it clear if the games continued under the auspices of the Foundation when Harry left.

MSincccc (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a detailed article by the Guardian explaining how Harry and Meghan left the royal foundation to pursue their own charities and set up a new office and an Instagram account.

Harry established the Invictus Games Foundation after the 2014 games (source). Sort of similar to how William established the Earthshot Prize as a separate entity following the first awards ceremony.

I'll leave it to you to incorporate these into the article. You should be capable of doing this by now. Keivan.f^Talk 13:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any reliable secondary sources that mention the formation of the Invictus Games Foundation. Currently, the foundation’s formation is only referenced on its official website. MSincccc (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The use of a primary source is acceptable in this instance as the existence of the foundation is not in dispute. It was first backed by the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Foundation before becoming its own charity body. Keivan.f^Talk 14:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all of Wehwalt's comments, but you are welcome to review the article yourself if it is convenient. I hope I have done my job properly. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to have a look if I find any spare time. Keivan.f^Talk 18:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother § New lead image. Rexophile (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f You are invited to join this discussion, in which you might be interested, at Talk: Rishi Sunak.

P.S. The discussion focuses on removing information about his family vacations, detailed personal interests, and remarks at multiple public engagements, all of which are considered trivial for any Wikipedia article. Your input in the discussion would be appreciated. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that this matter has been discussed previously here and here. However, a new discussion has been initiated by the concerned user at Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. You are invited to join the latest discussion here. MSincccc (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Royal Family Order of Elizabeth II § Lead image. Rexophile (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Endgame (Scobie book), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Dutch edition of Endgame: Inside the Royal Family and the Monarchy's Fight for Survival was recalled? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Endgame (Scobie book). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Endgame (Scobie book)), 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.

SL93 (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, really well written and balanced. It's very strange writing about royals, I love it when I see your contributions on my watchlist. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@No Swan So Fine: Thank you so much. I can say the exact same thing about your works; always fascinating and of high quality. Keivan.f^Talk 22:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]