User talk:Chaheel Riens/Archive 1

Archive 1

londoncyclesport.com is good and valid?

The site https://londoncyclesport.com/best-bmx-bikes/ is a "good and valid" link? It's a scraper site, mirroring the very Wikipedia it purports to verify, so it's at best a circular reference, if we could ignore the WP:COPYLINK violations. Besides scraped content, it's nothing but Amazon and other retail referrals. I think you're confused. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, however good faith could have been assumed to the original poster. Rather than assuming that the OP knew all the above you could have explained a bit better at least via edit summary - as would have been polite. If an experienced editor such as myself made the mistake of thinking that that the original Wiki text came from the london site, you should assume it reasonable that an IP editor with two edits to their name could also be confused. AGF and all that.

You should explain your reasoning rather than hit them with yet another template (and no edit summary) which doesn't explain why you've done what you've done. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Top Gear test track, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Billy Baxter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

About Dolores Umbridge

Yes I will admit that she was a more direct threat but that's different from being a bigger threat. I'm pretty sure you and I can both agree that a mean school official isn't as dangerous as a lord of evil. Plus there's also the fact that she was defeated way too early. Normally the defeat of the main villain is supposed to mean the end of the hero's struggles but by the time she was defeated there were still three whole chapters involving Harry and his friends fighting the Death Eaters. 70.52.175.150 (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Nah, we disagree on this. Umbridge was a far greater threat to Harry and his Scooby gang than Voldemort ever was during the plot of the book. She showed many times that she was indeed not just a mean school official, but genuinely evil. Her very first act (although we don't find out is was her until later,) is to intentionally send Dementors after not only Harry but a muggle who would be unable to defend himself or even see them. Slytherin's locket aids her, recognises her innate evil, and her punishments are basic torture - the blood quill and the Cruciatus Curse. Her early defeat in no way lessens the threat she posed to Harry and the pupils of the school itself. In direct comparison, Voldemort has no manifest presence in the book apart from the last couple of chapters where he fights with Dumbledore. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Voldemort wasn't just doing nothing until the last few chapters. He was trying to search for the prophecy, build his army of Death Eaters and corrupt Harry's mind.70.52.175.150 (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Still not a direct threat to him, his friends or the school. Voldemort is the primary antagonist for the entire series, but in this book it's Umbridge. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I think if you wish to discuss this further it might be better placed on the article talk page where other editors can offer comments. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello,do you read Harry Potter? Linxi 1234 (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The Voldemort article picture was from the movie. Linxi 1234 (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Avidly, and yes, I know - see this archive where I argued that all HP characters should be represented by their film characterisations. Chaheel Riens (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

In this edit you did what I meant to do. Unfortunately, I misread the diff I reverted and did the exact opposite of what I meant to do. Thanks for cleaning up.  :) Toddst1 (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Your rfc closure

Hello. You need to sign your closing comment on the rfc at Talk:Down syndrome#RfC on the first part of the first sentence. --Mirokado (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, hi - I just came here to give you a message in a less public place. I'm not opposed to you - I'm British, and if you asked me how to spell it, I'd have written Down's. However, I'm an administrator, and part of my job is to see that stuff is done properly. I'm sorry, but that close was done totally improperly. Undo it, let someone else close it, and we're good. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I did ask you how to spell it - I raised an RfC regarding it. Please comment there on your preferred option. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, how I personally spell it, and how our article ought to spell it, are two different things. I am not going to involve myself in the content dispute by expressing an opinion on the second thing, since I have been acting on the page in an administrative capacity - one isn't permitted to do both. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

Hi, Chaheel. I am a party to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence; I wanted to let you know that I mentioned you in this section of my evidence. The Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration may be helpful, should you opt to participate in the case, although there is no need for you to do that. I only wanted to make you aware. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

Hi @Chaheel Riens, don't you think that giving this IP only one warning was a little harsh? They did continue vandalizing Andrew Flintoff, however, so if it is justified, maybe applying for a block is in order. Cheers! xRENEGADEx 21:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

XRENEGADEx, I went big bang because although apparently different, the duck test supports the likelihood that this was the same IP editor (or at the very least there is some connection between them,) so it wasn't their first edit but a continuation after vandalism had already been reverted - and an L1 warning left on their talk page. I thought I'd cut to the chase as it seemed obvious they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Now they've continued to vandalise after an L4 warning a block is (probably) justified - as you point out, but they'll probably just switch IP addresses. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. I was just patrolling RC when I came across this, and didn't know there were probably multiple IPs. I think a block is justified. Maybe you can get a range block? xRENEGADEx 22:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XRENEGADEx (talk • contribs)

Bikini

I gave that IP an only warning for the edit you undid. The same user just came off of a block on another IP for repeatedly adding random pictures of nude or scantily clad women to various articles. Meters (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Jumanji

Moved to article talk page.

About Freeman

If characters like Doomguy and BJ BlaczkcowiPolishLastName are categorized as "mass murderers", shouldn't Gordon Freeman too? Sergei zavorotko (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I don't think they meet the criteria for mass murderers either. Murder is defined as "the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse..." - whilst Freeman does kill plenty of people it's always under provocation, or in self defence. Moreover, a considerable number of his killings aren't human.

Incidentally - what's going on with "BJ BlaczkcowiPolishLastName"? Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Your help desk question

Did you find the help you needed? This question didn't get a response. I think WP:VPT may be the place to ask but there could be others.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

3RR

I left a warning with the other editor about WP:3RR on Jeremy Clarkson so the same goes here. Please be very careful with the number of reverts/edit warring. I note the discussion you started the talk page and I hope this will resolve the issue. Woody (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Biographies of living persons noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding a BLP issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Thank you. --Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 19:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sally Phillips, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radio 4.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Philipp Plein, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Maluma and Billy Porter.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Angus Young

He was raised Sydney. G. Picanço (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I would say "discuss it on the talk page instead of edit warring and posting duplicate comments on user talk pages", but as I see you've been blocked for this very behaviour - perhaps not. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Leeds United Service Crew

I wish you had explained the first time why you removed that edit; the editor has a point when they complain about that. What I really needed to see in any of the edit summaries, from both of you, is what the book actually says--it's not accessible via Google Books. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hm, even with an edit summary of "you need to realise that it is not a "negative" feat. Being bad boys, and everyone wants be to like Leeds, is actually a coveted feat"? The lack of ability to check is ultimately why my edit summary said (typo included) "There is nothign wrong with this version as stated" Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Suitcase nuclear device

Why did you delete my change? I'm not starting any war, it seems you are but deleting my change before saying anything. Please revert the change immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.100.107 (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The reasons for reverting were clarified in the respective edit summaries here:

• This edit summary - "WP:TRIVIA - I'd argue that The Fourth Protocol is a much better candidate for this section, given that it's the major plot, and indeed the reference of the book's title"
• and here - "as per previous rationale - please use the talk page to explain why this is notable, rather than edit warring."

The edit warring warning you have removed from your page explains what edit warring is, and why you're skating too close to the thing ice it covers. If you wish to include your suggestoin - bring it up on the talk page first. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Invasion! (2000 AD), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EMP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Your ridiculous accusations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The expression "call a spade a spade" is a well-known and well-established expression which is understood in common language to mean that things should be called what they are. It has no racial connotations whatsoever. Your allegation to the contrary is absurd and offensive. I therefore reject your order not to use the expression in the future, and I will continue to do so where appropriate. You acknowledge yourself (correctly) that you don't think I am being racist. So please don't waste my time and yours defending hysterical and irrational interpretations that run contrary to the English language. If hysterical idiots choose to get offended by inoffensive terms, then there is nothing we can do about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberno1 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Alberno1, I made no such accusations - and in fact I specifically say I don't think you're being intentionally racist. I suggested you stopped trying to force your opinion on the Dianne Abbott article, as that clearly is contested. The fact that you are not aware of racist connotations does not exclude them from existing, and you should use this as an opportunity to improve yourself.

I offered the comments as a sign of good faith, but that I was perhaps wrong there as well.

If you wish to remain here as an editor your attitude needs considerable improvement, and as another (perhaps misplaced) sign of good faith, I've placed a welcome template on your page that includes several links on how Wikipedia operates, and what is expected from editors and their contributions. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I have removed your defamatory and false statement that I am unaware of racist connotations. The expression "call a spade a spade" has no racist connotations, for the reasons explained above. You know it has no racist connotations. Do not repeat such defamatory accusations again, as they will not be tolerated.

Alberno1, I'm not sure if you're trolling me now, or genuinely so zealous you can't see your errors in judgement. Apart from the fact that I haven't made any defamatory comments, what exactly will you do when you say "they will not be tolerated"?

Have you looked at any of the links in the welcome template? They might help. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You have accused me of being unaware of the "racist connotations" of the phrase 'call a spade a spade.' That is false, since, as you are now aware, the phrase has no racist connotations. It is also defamatory, because falsely making out that someone is unaware of racism is defamatory. You will not make this allegation again and every time you do it will be removed.

If you seriously think you have a case to make, head on over to WP:ANI - but stop refactoring my comments. You may disagree with them, but you may not remove them. The term "spade" is racist, and when used in reference to a black politician who you have strong opinions over it is easy to see how your comments could be construed. This is a pointless conversation, so I'm stopping it here and now. WP:ANI awaits if you still feel strongly. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cleanup categories

Hi, when you add a template like {{Cleanup}} it automatically adds the categories to the page. You don't need to add Category:Articles needing cleanup yourself. (This means that when the template is removed the categories are too.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC).

Hi Rich. I re-added it in because I inadvertently removed it during reverting of what I considered over-enthusiastic cleaning earlier.

It was originally added by user Phantasm99 here - you might want to drop them a similar note? Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC).

So called "edit war"

Relocated to the talk page, which is a better forum: Talk:Year 2000 problem Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Your help desk question

Did you ever find the answer to this question? I just now saw it and wouldn't know how to answer.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Harry Potter Page InfoBox Pictures

Hi, I hope you’re well!

I edited the infobox pictures on some of the Harry Potter pages this afternoon but the edits were reverted by yourself. I wondered if we could open up a discussion on making illustrations of the characters within the infobox rather than the film portrayals. I feel this would be more consistent with other literary character pages on Wikipedia.

Just a suggestion I wanted to put out there. I have also opened this for discussion on the Ron weasley talk page. Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Are we allowed to revert comments on Talk pages now?

I made a comment expressing surprise at 2 previous comments on Albus Dumbledore's Talk page and you reverted it. I am wondering why, seeing as it wasn't offensive or a direct article edit. --OtuNwachinemere (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

What value does "huuuuhhhhh!!!" add to the article or talk page? Your response should take into account WP:FORUM Point 4 and also Talk page guidelines: "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor". Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

ZX81

Hi there.

I don't deny several notable individuals are mentioned in the legacy section. It does appear to me though that the persons listed seem to all range from humourists, to physicians, to journalists, to video game designers-- some of the latter I'm personally very fond of. However, do these individuals qualify as ever holding "major roles in the British computer industry"? Not that I'd ever arrogate myself to the position of deciding who is and who isn't prominent in that field, nor am I disparaging the great work of video game developers (as my username may hint). But I do perhaps think "major roles" may be slightly strongly worded. Do you have any thoughts on this?

Thanks for your time. I'll put the link to the edit in question here too, on the off-chance you don't remember and this whole message reads to you like the deranged ramblings of a madman. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZX81&diff=1010465414&oldid=1010446918 VideoGamePlaya (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

VideoGamePlaya, fair point - and well put. At first glance, perhaps "significant", instead of "major" - both are similar, but carry slightly different connotations. I suppose we could also just lose "major" altogether, having thought about it? Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It may very well be the case that such individuals do in fact exist, they just aren't mentioned. Some digging on my part may be able to unearth something, but as it stands, 'major' definitely seems a strong word. And I apologise for the slow reply.VideoGamePlaya (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I've removed "major" as we're both agreed on that point. No problem about delay - it took me a week to respond as well... Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your helpfulness.VideoGamePlaya (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Berlin Wall Discussion

Chaheel Riens, I understand your desire to explain yourself in the article talk page as to why one of the sections should be deleted, but shouldn't discussion in article talk pages focus on the article? Might it be a good idea to bring it up somewhere else, to avoid meta discussion? Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no need to ping me when leaving a message on my own talk page.

The absolute best place to discuss talk page content is not only the talk page itself, but the section in question. Talk pages can refer to themselves - you can't have a talk page for a talk page...

As per WP:TALK: "This page in a nutshell: Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." As the section does exactly the opposite - expresses an opinion, and offers nothing to improve the article - it's perfectly corect to question both the value and necessity of it on the talk page. I still maintain that the OP was correct to remove it for exactly those reasons.

If you've taken time to respond here, please also take time to respond on the talk page in question with arguments as to why the section should stay, and the value it adds to both talk page and article, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

My bad with the ping, it's a habit. I don't really have a counterargument, so I don't really see why I should respond with one in the talk page. Thanks for answering my question, though. Tyrone Madera (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The Stig -fyi

Hi Chaheel Riens, just to answer your question. I reverted this (my own) edit as I realised that the grammatical item mentioned in the comment did not match the edit. This happens when I'm editing an AWB list and in this case moving to a different list (and therefore description) within the same session. Occasionally one of these mismatches slips through and I'll revert it, so as not to confuse anyone with a description that does not totally match the edit. I'll typically catch up with the relevant page in another edit cycle if the original issue still exists. Neils51 (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hausa people

If you have issues with the edits, Why dont you too take it up on the Hausa talk page instead of engaging in edit war, and look at why your edits are being reverted. Pls stop this act deliberate misinformation about the Hausa. The more you do that the more people will come out with more facts and info in defence of Hausa people,Ppdallo (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You are guilty of exactly the same thing you are warning me about. Ppdallo (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

True, which is why I have stopped reverting you. However you should note that (childishness aside) you started it. You added inaccurate, and unsourced information into an article which I challenged. You added more inaccurate information - which I again challenged. You then added a third inaccurate source - again challenged.

You may want to look up WP:BRD - Bold, revert, discuss. However, you should also note that while discussion is happening - the original version should stay in place. Your refusal to follow this is not really encouraging.

Also, your final edit summary on Hausa People states: "See talkpage for rationale" - you haven't provided one yet. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

testing automatic "ping"

Hi there. -Arch dude (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Arch dude - it's like the old days of CB radio! Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Cueva de las Manos

Hi, uh, wanna take a look at my work on Cueva de las Manos and let me know what you think? I've added significant content and I thought it would be good to ask a more experienced editor to come check it out. Thanks :-) Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

So, what do you say? (You don't have to reply, I'm just curious if you saw the post.) ☺ Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, sorry - yes you've done masses of good work there, also in an area that I know little about. I can't comment on the validity of the information because of that, but as far as how you've presented the content I can't see any problems or issues (bar one) with it. It's all sourced, makes grammatical sense and is well formatted to the end reader.

The only section that gave me pause is Context and the paragraph:

Regardless, for so many people to have contributed to the artwork for so many thousands of years, there is no doubt that the cave held large significance to the artists who painted on its walls.<ref name=":8" /> In short, for so many people to have gathered in one place to contribute to rock art for such a long period of time, it must have had a large cultural significance, or at least usefulness to those who participated

For me as a personal comment "Regardless" and "In short" don't seem encyclopaedic, and seem a bit out of place or conversational. That might be just me - don't think I'm deliberately picking holes. I'd maybe rephrase it somewhat. But otherwise - I don't know why you're concerned - it's all good stuff. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! ☺ Awesome, I'm glad that it comes across well. You're not being nitpicky at all—I thought that there were probably big problems with it, but I guess sometimes we are our own worst critics. I wasn't sure about formatting or text-source relationship (RIP Paywall), but I'm glad that for the most part it seems to read well.

Overall, I think my biggest concerns involve content (how long the article should be), weight (how detailed the article should be), format (I'm glad that it looks decent), and text-source (as mentioned above). I also had some minor concerns about clunkiness, but that's just because it hadn't been proofread yet. My current goal is to get the article up to C or B class, with my overall goal to make it reach A class.

With regards to the context paragraph, I was rather unsure about that paragraph when I first wrote it. I wanted to make it seem more professional like you said, but I don't really know how best to rephrase.

Anyways, I appreciate the help, and I'm hoping that over time more collaborators can be brought in to allow the diversity in perspectives that Wikipedia is known for to shine.

Thanks again! Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I think in your case the best option is to just be bold and edit - which is what you're doing. If people disagree and revert, as a general rule the edit summary will give a reason why, and of course there's always talk pages as well.

Flattered that you're asking me for advice, but I don't think you need to - your editing is fine without support from anybody - especially me! Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Thank you! :) Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I think china is a federal country when Wikipedia says it s a unitary.

What s wrong with china as a unitary state, not a federal country? Why china is a unitary state despite its large size making it a suitable federal state rather than a unitary state? Any federalism movement in china as of 2021? China is a Marxist Leninist state that is similar to the soviet union, which is a federal state, the problem is why china is a unitary state, not a federal state for wrongfully being a large-sized state in the world? Please explain to us! Cyberllamamusic (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Cyberllamamusic, why are you asking me this? I have no idea what you're talking about. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, I'm talking about the statement that China is a federal country, not a unitary.

Cyberllamamusic, This is something I have no experience, knowledge, or desire to be involved in. To the best of my knowledge I've never edited the China article, or expressed interest in the matter - so I have to ask again; why are you asking me this? It's not a conversation I want to have, or could even contribute to if I did want to have. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Freddie Flintoff

Hi Chaheel

Re the move request a few days ago, I just thought I'd reply since you said I needed to be "more careful" in justifying my revert. The point I was making with the link to the BBC source, which I used when I reverted the earlier move, is that that BBC article describes him throughout as "Andrew". There's no denying that he is sometimes called Freddie, and yes a TV show title like the one mentioned in that article is quite likely to use a catchy name like that in its title. But our article titling policies as detailed at WP:AT are clear that we use the most common name from reliable sources. Generally speaking, the onus is at WP:RM is on someone who wants to move the page to make a good case for that move, there is less onus on me as the one reverting the bold move, as long as I have some justification - which I did, since that article and others clearly do call him Andrew even if the TV show says Freddie. Anyway, no worries now, and there was no harm done in seeing getting the opinion of more editors through that RM. Happy editing, and I hope you have a good week.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Lower back tattoo article

Hello, Chaheel!

I've been trying to edit the article Lower back tattoo. I see you revert it & do make a good point...that the source may not cite that particular idea. Though, there's no way to verify/see the source without buying the book/chapters in the prof's book.

Still, I wonder if you see the article as problematic in terms of sexism? I do. I feel, Wikipedia as a whole sexualizes literally everything women do & this article is what I'm focusing on -- it's so blatant.

The chicago sun times for example (i'd hope out of embarrassment?) doesn't have their article available anymore. The most recent source is 10 years old.

It's written entirely as if women are the only ones who have this tattoo placement and bringing with it societal (harsh) judgements and male gaze with it. It's clear men have them (see links below) so help me understand what's the goal of this article? -Rachel Li

https://www.google.com/search?q=lower+back+tattoo+men&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiZltioltTwAhXVtZ4KHT4fCfoQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=lower+back+tattoo+men&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzIECAAQQzIGCAAQBRAeMgYIABAIEB4yBggAEAgQHjIGCAAQCBAeMgYIABAIEB4yBggAEAgQHlDZTljZTmCSUGgAcAB4AIABS4gBS5IBATGYAQCgAQGqAQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZ8ABAQ&sclient=img&ei=jTGkYNmbAdXr-gS-vqTQDw&bih=597&biw=1107&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS840US842

https://www.google.com/search?q=david+beckham+lower+back+tattoo&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS840US842&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=BanRgK0qJA5cDM%252Cq_-rUKNETkTsrM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRb9udyV9RBrx2cSllrMV5gJbG8CA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi2q5OglNTwAhXYop4KHY9KCmoQ9QF6BAgKEAE&biw=1107&bih=597#imgrc=BanRgK0qJA5cDM

Re: Dave Courtney Reversion

Do you mind NOT leaving your rude comments on my talk page.

I made one alteration to the listed above in the title and you felt that because you didn't like it not only did you change it that you felt so strongly that you had to leave a message on my user talk page telling me not to make quite clearly in your own opinion something that you didn't like - one word....

Pathetic.

Do not bother to respond to this message and go off and bother others and see if you get the same response.

" July 2021 Information icon Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Dave Courtney. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2021"

Juanpumpchump (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps if you behaved in a fashion that didn't necessitate such comments, neither of us would be in this situation? Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you felt that you needed to get on your high horse and clearly personally attack another Wikipedian for one singe word alteration - clearly there must be something wrong with you if that is how you behave towards others?

You are the one that started this altercation so if any one else on here would like to step in an administer in a neutral position then I am quite happy for that.

Juanpumpchump (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Very well - as you wish: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor behaviour over Twinkle response. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Cyanoacrylate

£5 says it's not all over... 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:FDB2:77A7:2066:EEC2 (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't you mean $5? Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

LOL! Split the difference and say €5? 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:FDB2:77A7:2066:EEC2 (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You win - the cheque's in the post. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - gender and sexuality

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Just letting you know about the stricter rules for gender and sexuality related topics on Wikipedia. Don't worry, it's just a standard notice that has to be given and you've not done anything wrong. Sideswipe9th (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey h

Can you guide why my credit are deleted which I have updated 103.248.202.202 (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Please reply

I will be waiting Omjha1122 (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea which edits you're talking about. If they're the recent changes made to the Tanushree Dutta article, then they were reverted because they were inaccurate, sycophantic, broke the infobox, and unnecessary. You're probably trying to improve the article, but those edits (again, if those are the ones you're referring to,) fell short of the quality required, even if they didn't break the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

How was what I done disruptive editing? Unspecified12345 (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Please stop!

Please, do not undo perfectly correct and suitable edits. Thank you. Antique Rose 22:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the concept of WP:BRD? Your edits are being challenged, so while we try to work this out - it's surely best to have nothing in place at all. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lingerie. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Antique Rose 22:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's just note - as of your posting this message, who reverted who last? It would be you reverting me, I think? Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Volkswagen Phaeton main photo

Photo does not have to bee "own work" its enough if its free to use and license free. I kindly mentioned the source of photo with the link. Photo does not have to be own work Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Toyota Corolla E140, if you claim the work is your own work, then it absolutely has to be your own work, not an upload of an image you believe to be "free user and license free".

Additionally, the image isn't "free to use and license free", as the netcarshow terms & conditions clearly prohibit this use:[1]

Use License

Permission is granted to temporarily download one copy of the materials on NetCarShow.com's web site for personal, non-commercial transitory viewing only. This is the grant of a license, not a transfer of title, and under this license you may not:

1. modify or copy the materials;
2. use the materials for any commercial purpose, or for any public display (commercial or non-commercial);
3. attempt to decompile or reverse engineer any software contained on NetCarShow.com's web site;
4. remove any copyright or other proprietary notations from the materials; or
5. transfer the materials to another person or "mirror" the materials on any other server.

Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Netcarshow is just the uploader and holder of thousands of similar images. The image is created by Volkswagen Advertising Group in 2002. Its an Ad photo if you didnt still get it.

tl:dr image is made by Volkswagen Ad team in 2002. Its an Ad and you can use it on wikipedia Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

But it is not your own work, as you are claiming, thus the image has incorrect licensing. Adverts and promotional material are still copyrighted, and usage can be restrictive. Until the licensing has been established we should not be using it. You cannot assume it's free to use. ^{I am also amused that your TL:DR was almost the same length as your rationale, but that's beside the point.} Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Additional - I see it's been deleted anyway, so this is a moot point. Please have a read of the template I left on your talk page, so you can understand copyright and licensing etc next time, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Well lets license it correctly ill try again and then dont delete it. Its best image best angles

TL:DR: Lets use the image with correct license bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla best image ever, ill handle the licensing and make sure its legal. Bla bla bla blaah Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hm, I'm starting to think you're either a troll, or just not listening. I'm not sure which it is yet, but I'm pretty sure nothing good or positive is going to come from this conversation so please don't bother me here again - I'll let a more sober head advise you before it's too late. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Here you got ur license Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Image was fre to use from autodata.com just didnt know how to license it. Didnt see it first but it was the below the option "my work" everyhyinng is fine now no need to bother anymore Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

im not troll heres an example, i remastered the photo of Nixon because the orginal photo stated in the caption that it needed retouch so you can go ahead and dothe license and publish changes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Nixon#Richard_Nixon%27s_presidential_portrait%2C_Remastered Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Just compare the retouched photo (made by me) with the orginal. and they even needed it so i as a good guy made it for them Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

If your not going to answer to me again this is the last youll hear of me, i cheked and saw these same images of the same car, same license plate, im 100% these images are like i said Volskwagens marketin Ad group, and the are on Auto Data, Net car shor, 1001motoeurs, automaniac.com sites, they are free to use on a non profitable site, just let it be there Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

automaniac.org/legal

Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Toyota Corolla E140, I've brought the question up at New editor, image licensing and the VW Phaeton. Please head over there and comment. Based on your above response I'm thinking you're not a troll, but that doesn't mean I think you're right either. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Toyota Corolla E140: The file you unploaded to Commons has been tagged for speedy deletion (see c:User talk:Toyota Corolla E140#Copyright status: File:Volkswagen Phaeton 2002.jpg) because Commons doesn't accept any type of copyright licenses that place "non-commercial use only" types of restrictions on file re-use. If you believe you can get the copyright holder's consent to upload this file to Commons, please read the instructions given at c:COM:VRT#If you're NOT the copyright holder. Otherwise, you're going to need to find a freely licensed image of the car to upload an use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The photo is not from Net Car show, Its from AutoManiac.org. That car with those plates was taken to US in 2002 for photographing and is used by other car specs sites like 1001motoeurs, Auto data, Auto maniac, Net Car show. Stop reading the net car show terms and conditions and accept the photo ase it is, license free made by Volkswagen Group. Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The orginal photo with grey car looks like shit, it looks like its about the get scrapped. Again photo i uploaded that you so hate is free to use Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Go see my update on your thingy that you created Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Other websites using the photo doesn't mean the file has been released under a free license that Commons accepts. Other websites may be using the file under a claim of fair use, but Commons doesn't accept any type of fair use content as explained here. I don't hate the photo, but it's not released under a license that either Wikipedia or Commons accepts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I relased it with free to use, modify, publish, sell as NFT, do what ya want license. I As wikipedia editor take all the responsibilites that this photo comes with, i am held accountable for this photo and i gurantee its free to use photo.

Ill upload it later today, with proper license about it that ITS NOT MY WORK, but free to use, publis, modify, "do what ya want license" Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Just repeatedly saying "it's free to use" doesn't make it so. You need to find the source of the image - VW, it seems - and demonstrate that the licensing there is acceptable. Imagine the image propagation as a waterfall. Checking the license at the bottom of the waterfall is no good - you need to go to the top of the waterfall, the source of the water, and show that the license there meets our criteria. Until that happens we really are heading into WP:IDHT territory. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It has no copyright protection Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

If the image is not protected by copyright, then you can't release because there's nothing to release it from. The copyright over a photo is typically held by the person who takes it. Pretty much every photo is going to be considered protected by copyright unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. Even if the photographer is unknown, it's going to be assumed to be protected by copyright as an "anonymous work" for a certain amount of time as explained in c:Commons:Anonymous works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The photo is taken in 1971. I guess its mine then, and i license it and then ill upload it Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

If a photo of car that was introduced in 2002 was taken in 1971 is even possible, it would still not be your property any more than any other creative work created in 1971 would be yours for the taking. Your Commons account has been blocked for a day by a Commons administrator mostly because of your attempts to upload this photo under questionable licensing. I really suggest you seek assistance about this at c:COM:VPC to get other opinions if you think I've be giving you incorrect information. If you continue to try and upload this file under questionable claims of "own work" or questionable licensing after your block expires, your account will most likely be blocked again for a much longer period of time. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

How long Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Dont block me i remaster wikipedia photos, that need/ are asked to be retouched Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Some of my remastered images are probably wrongly licensed but work of re touching is my own work with adobe ps Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Toyota Corolla E140: you may remaster old photos you find on Commons, but it is a requirement that you list the original source like this.[2] You may not remaster works which do not fit Commons definition of free. Commons doesn't accept images (see derivative works essay) unless:

• they're explicitly licensed to allow commercial reuse and derivatives or
• they're public domain by reason of age (see c:COM:HIRTLE for US images; other rules apply for other countries).

The 2002 Toyota image doesn't fall into either bucket.

Your block was only on Commons and only for one day. I will lift it if you indicate you are willing to read our policies on copyright. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Now i cant login anymore with my PC thanks a lot. And there was no 2002 "Toyota" image. Only a Volkswagen Phaeton 2002 Photo wich is owned by Volkswagen group and they allow the usage of the image of the car wich is not even produced anymore Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

And once again Nixon photo was asked to be remastred go into the English wikipedia open the offical office portrait and read the text Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Your edit summary of removoing the photo that was proprely licensed: "There are still massive doubts about the veracity of the licensing this image"

My man, your "doubting" only, are 100% sure im wrong? Not 100% sure? It was stated to you many times that the photo owner is okay with the image being published here.

Your actions are pretty bad and you just deleted the image because you suspected its license being wrong... way to go man.

Show some respect towards other editors and stop harassing and constantly questioning other peoples license Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Just un block me, ill upload it good with all info correct, no i wont credit my self, no i wont do anything stupid. I will followe the insteuctions of file upload step by step and make sure every copyright link is correct. Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh well looks like i found the orginal license

"The information and material such as text, image, audio or video documents availble on this website are copyright free."

Hannover, September 2018

Un block me and i have it fixed up and ill send you the .pdf to email if you want to because i think you still not belive me Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Do i email it to you or what? Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Just post a link the the URL here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Yea maybe if i could login in on my PC but i seem to be blocked Toyota Corolla E140 (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Toyota Corolla E140: we don't owe you anything. You aren't going to get far on here by posting demands.

We have told you numerous times why images with non-commercial clauses are not OK. No searching for alternate wording and no amount of complaining will change that.

We have been polite but you are dangerously close to reaching tendentious editing and earning a much longer block. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Toyota Corolla E140, as you can post comments here on my talk page, why can you not post the URL to the T&Cs here? You don't seem to be blocked (although you may be heading that way). Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Additional: If your block is on commons, as seems to be the case - certainly post the URL here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Anna Sorokin

You reverted my edit. I cannot find out how to use the conversion template. When I tried to use it in several iterations, all I got was error messages. I tried and failed to find how to use it in WP help. I have particular dislike for editors who add nothing constructive, but just destroy the hard work of sincere editors. If you know how to use the template, please do everyone a favor and insert into the article correctly. --Zeamays (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Zeamays, as I said in my edit summary "I disagree with this insertion", therefore I will not be assisting you, despite you asking so politely. Usage of the template is simple enough, but if you cannot follow the help (and going against my previous statement of saying I won't help) - try finding another article that uses it, and work it out from there. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Skooldaze.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Skooldaze.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Hey, Hope you're doing well. I noticed you have replied to an edit request on Talk:Emma Watson and responded as not done, but you have not changed the status to answered. In future when you respond to edits, Kindly change the status answered status to Yes. Thankyou _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 10:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I usually do - I just missed this one. Cheers for completing it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cleveron company logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cleveron company logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

PF archives

Hello. Just making you are aware that every discussion I have removed on the Pulp Fiction talk page I have archived as well. They are on the archive talk pages 4 and 5 if you'd like to check. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding recent Morrissey edit suggestions

Hello, I am fairly new on Wikipedia editing community. I noticed you (Chaheel Riens) restored the previous edit in good faith. How can I better argue and present my points in general? Is the edit summary the right place to go into details? I appreciate the great and taxing work you do. Thank you for the warm welcome! (Redacted) 06:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. I presume you're Deus Ex Wikia, but logged out? First thing I'd advise is that you log back in and only post with your username. Doing so hides your IP and geolocation, and there are occasions (not this one) when editing while logged out can be considered a negative behaviour - WP:LOGOUT.

With regard to better presenting your editing rationale, edit summaries are precisely that - no more than a sentence to summarise the changes. If your change cannot be adequately explained, that's what the talk page is for. Simply create a new section on the article's talk page and put forward your views. Although not required, if I'm making a change that requires (imo) considerable rationale, I tend to put in the edit summary "See talk page for rationale" which lets other editors know that there is explanation elsewhere. Quite happy to discuss any other questions you may have, but also quite happy to point out that instead of asking me personally for advice, you may get a more rounded response by posting questions at either the helpdesk or the Teahouse: Wikipedia:Help desk and Wikipedia:Teahouse respectively. For all my experience here, it pales compared to the sum of all other volunteers who patrol those pages. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

That clears it up perfectly. Thank you for the engagement and advice. Deus Ex Wikia (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, the logging out was inadvertent. I seem to have revealed my current location worldwide to the final microscopic detail. Will the deletion of this "active discussion" on your user page wipe out my exposed IP permanently from the annals of Wikipedia? If so, I would very much appreciate if you did it as soon as possible and help me out. Thanks! Deus Ex Wikia (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Deus Ex Wikia your IP has been removed from this page (with thanks to Chaheel Riens for reporting this issue to the oversight team). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Much obliged to both of you! Deus Ex Wikia (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Pseudo-doxing

It's incredibly inappropriate and creepy to IP Whois someone and then publicly state the general location they are from as a means to intimidate and "win" the argument as you did here Talk:Lauren Boebert#Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2022 2600:6C54:7900:CD7:6898:B1CB:ACC9:1BF8 (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Unless there's some obscure law in Kennewick that states this, I don't think so. The fact that Wikipedia includes two different methods of geolocate as part of an IPs contributions is perhaps a good reason to make an account, as stated here: Wikipedia:Why create an account?

If you don't want your geolocation to be made public either get an account or stop editing Wikipedia. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Positioning

I think this reasonable request would better be placed a little higher up on that same page. -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. I put it there originally because it was intended as a direct reply to Kelisi's own comment - basically to show that I was aware he was editing his own page, but ignoring my request. I've moved it anyway. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Anne Heche

Language such as "Heche was 53" is very typical at the end of announcements of unexpected death. It's not _required_ as you say, but provides appropriate information that many readers will want to know without searching further. I don't know why you wouldn't also want to know if you were reading it. - [no desire to start an argument]. Blainster (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Because as pointed out it's in the infobox that has to be scrolled past. Also, I disagree that it's typical and thus common in the project. Wikipedia does not do announcements - it reports upon announcements. There's a difference. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens Good 2nd point. However the Infobox is collapsed by default on a mobile device, thus will not be seen when scrolling, unless explicitly opened. Blainster (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Your vandalism rv on Talk:Clinton Body Count beat me to the joke. Dronebogus (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletion

@Chaheel Riens you deleted a key phrase about Internationalist Theatre that it broke racial barriers. Did you read the section in the main page Angelique Rockas article on Internationalist Theatre where in the editorial of The Stage of April 1981 the multi-racial policy is mentioned in the forthcoming production of Genet`s `The Balcony `that incorporated this multi-racial policy . Would there have been any need for this to be published if it was not unusual to be following a multi-racial drama casting policy with established classics? In ref 26 you have a link to the BBC Latin American review of the multi-racial production of `The Camp`. I would request that you revert your own edit ,and restore the text, You may also like to read the WIKI EN of Internationalist Theatre, the Simple Wiki `s of Angelique Rockas, and Internationalist Theatre and the photo archives in Wikicommons. Thank you {{ToBeFair980 (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)}}

Please show where in any of these references the claim that "breaking racial barriers that were once accepted norms for theatrical performances" is supported. There is no doubt that there is considerable racial diversity within Rockas' work, but please show reliable sources that specifically support racial barriers being accepted norms. That's the issue. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

PS: Remember that the lede is to summarise the entire article, not to introduce new material. If something is stated in the lede, it must be corroborated by the main article somewhere as an actual statement, not merely alluding to it. This is why statements in the lede do not generally require sourcing, as the claim (and thus source) should be in the article itself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I replied to your message

Several of those articles do indeed support the "Age controversy" category. Please restore the tag to the ones that do. Smartallison (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I checked each page, and there was no mention in the "Early life" or equivalent section that any of the article subjects had any controversy surrounding them. If there was, it was so buried that it wasn't clear, and that's essentially the same as no mention. The only article that does support the cat is Ja'Net DuBois which makes it clear in the opening sentence that there is ambiguity in her birthdate. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

In the select articles I mentioned earlier, there is content to support the cat either in the third paragraph of the lead[3], in the Early life section[4], or in the Personal life section[5]. It's clear. Are you going to self-revert the reverts? We should resolve these before proceeding with the articles that require new content. Smartallison (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Since you haven't replied, I'm restoring the cat to those 3. Smartallison (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Honda Accord

Do you have a source for that? This Japan Today article The British author was asked by a Japanese woman (presumably in English) where he was from. When he replied "England", she asked him what language they speak there. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Only that many Japanese-orientated articles on Wiki use the DMY template. Why is there a need to specify that, unless it's to remind those who think otherwise that there is a format other than MDY, and it's use here?

Not sure that japantoday is 100% neutral, given that although it is Tokyo based they chose to follow the American .com format, rather than the native .jp domains... Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

A number of other articles that popped up seemed to mirror that assessment. I wouldn't know where to find a RS on the matter. This Reddit poll suggest mostly American. I'm more concerned that we will all be speaking Chinese soon. Or given the state of the world, nothing. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

guidestones

Yeah, that section is why I was willing to violate 3RR, there was no way I was willing to let the editor edit war that section into staying in the article, its sourcing is not valid, it’s undue, and the prose is sloppy at best. Aoidh opened an AN3R for the other editor, where we determined I actually hadnt’t violated 3RR anyway, but I was more than willing to do so. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

FrederalBacon, I figured that was the best way of getting rid of it and at the same time negating any accusation to you of 3RR resulting in a block. Seemed that such an obvious gaming of the system would be taken for what it was - removal of contentious material - and it would all work out. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Never thought about it that way. Either way, thank you. I appreciate it, the end result was the same, and either way, I think anyone reading the content would understand why multiple editors were removing it. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Aliens source

Hi Chaheel, I didn't want to revert because I don't think I fully understand your complaint. This is the page you were asking for, it's available on Google Books (limited obviously). I'm not 100% what your concern was? Without rewatching the director's cut, doesn't Newts mom bring him back with a facehugger attached? He would be the first to either birth an alien or lead others to investigate leading to further infection. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 12:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Darkwarriorblake. The issue is not that the father is the first victim - that's undeniable, but the claim that greed and capitalism makes him disregards safety protocols and that leads to the facehugger. The quote in the source (and from the film) is "Shouldn't we call it in?" "Let's wait until we know what to call it in as," There's nothing there that confirms any safety or security has been ignored. (Note "Shouldn't", as a question, not "Must" as an imperative,) The novel states that they're "Mom & Pop prospectors", so prospecting investigating would seem to be their actual jobs. Tbh, the father's response seems perfectly reasonable.

As you say, even if they didn't go in (which seems unlikely based on conversation between Base Administrator Simpson and another colonist) subsequent colonists would investigate, be caught out and be infected. To my mind there are simply no safety protocols on Acheron that would cover the situation encountered by Newt's parents, because the planet is "...a rock. No indigenous life larger than a simple virus". Ripley confronts Burke and shouts that "[he] sent them out there and [he] didn't even warn them, Burke. Why didn't you warn them?" The colonists and prospectors just didn't know what they were dealing with, not blinded by greed, but lack of sufficient intel. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

But at the start of the section it also quotes him saying "we've scored big time" and it says in the section and I'm pretty sure it's in the film as well that your profit share is based on you having the ownership rights. I think Burke says it actually and it's why he wants to get the initial claim on the Aliens. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 14:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

That's all perfectly true, but there's still no evidence in either film, novel, or source to suggest that in their eagerness to stake their claim they wilfully ignored any security protocols, or even what said security measures may be. That's the issue. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, it is how those particular authors have interpreted it though and it is an analysis section. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

And that's why I've tagged it for a better source. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Sukavich Rangsitpol

How can I delete the deformation case that was fake news .The deformation was brought up it no confidence vote long time ago and our politician had won deformation lawsuit. Please delete the information I left in the help desk on delete the whole page แม่สอดตาก (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Zandar, Zarana, Zartan

There doesn't appear to be any imminent compromise between the two opposing factions regarding these pages. Does Wikipedia have a precedent for pages involving fictional characters that have multiple iterations? I know that the Spider-Man page, for instance, focuses primarily on his 616 (prime) biography and alternate identities have their own, separate entries. Zandar, Zarana, and Zartan don't have enough information, I would think, to warrant having separate pages for each iteration, so how would we handle information that isn't cohesive across all sources or that directly contradicts other sources? DarkLordMordred (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi DarkLordMordred. My first response would be to admit straight up that I have absolutely zero knowledge of these characters - I'm not even sure how I ended up with the original article in my watchlist. I'm just not a fan of people making changes, and then trying to keep their proposed changes in place even after reversion and discussion. I tend to side with the opposing view purely on principle in those cases.

However, back to your question. My personal suggestion would be to include the notable - ie those covered in reliable sources - in the article, but to make it clear that there are multiple versions, and that there is no consistency between character history depending on the comic or story arc.

You could also ask for an uninvolved editor to offer input. Not quite a third opinion, but just some advice. I will go out on a limb, and name Richard75, who like me has little input on this line of comics and characters, but has exceptional judgement and experience with regard to comics that I've seen. Additionally - he and I have disagreed on a few topics, so there can be no concern over cherry-picking editors to support a particular stance. He may of course decline, as it's far outside his normal editing habits - in which case, I'd suggest...

To ask for support over at the comic book project - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics - they may have a better suggestion than my cack-handed outsiders view.

And, of course, the final option is that if there's no consensus for change, then no change happens to the page and it stays in the original (sourced?) format. If the opposing editor doesn't agree with that, they're free to keep on inserting their changes, right up until they're blocked for edit-warring. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I will follow your suggestions. DarkLordMordred (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Examining the WHOIS and Geolocation info provided by Wikipedia reveals it's the same editor who has been blocked for a month and is circumventing the ban. Looking at their reasons for editing under multiple IP addresses since August 2022 across these three articles shows a bias against conclusive and definitive references to the characters Zandar and Zarana being twins. Their very first edit was to delete the information from the three articles entirely. They're introducing weasel words in order to introduce doubt into the referenced fact they're twins. The editor doesn't like this detail. They don't want it. Since they can't get rid of it, they're trying to mitigate these references. This has been going on for a month. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

Hey there -- just wanted to pop over and say I don't think you're clueless in that remark you made at Talk:Death of Leah Betts. Nothing to worry over. We're all humans. Except for the bots...👀

Cheers! :) AldezD (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Work with, not delete - Duesenberg article

Hi Chaheel, on that Duesnberg page, let's not delete whole sections like you were previously minded to. Talk to me - what do you advocate changing? Let's discuss here if you like... Wikifiveoh (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I advocate changing the article by removing the entire section as being unsourced and unrelated - as I did. Let's not discuss here, but on the proper talk page instead. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, sure, let's discuss there then. Wikifiveoh (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Why the Cursed Child is not canon?

Hi. can you give please a trustable source that approve this? according to your editing? אלבוס (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Given the length of time between edit and question, expect an answer sometime January 2028. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Haha, I'm asking this question because I need trustable proof of why the Cursed Child is not canon, and I was looking into the history of the page, and I found your edit. Do you have any clue about that? אלבוס (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

G.I. Joe Edit War (Zartan, Zarana, Zandar articles)

The IP disruptive editor/Sssscapegoat is claiming there is more than one recent editor to these pages despite the IP Geolocation pointing to Atlanta, Georgia for all of them. He is abusing the system by reporting me for edit warring and threatening to report me again and again if I make any edits to these pages he doesn't agree with. He's trying to hold the articles hostage to any edits he doesn't approve of. He is no longer communicating with me and says "We are done."

Not sure what to do. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'd let them report you. I've followed that path before myself when I've been confident that I'm right, but have run out of procedural methods of enforcing such an expectation. The entire set of articles are becoming hard to track, and I'm not an expert in this particular area. If they follow through with their threat once reported you have a chance to put forward your own arguments. Other editors are also invited to comment. Once it gets to that stage, you have an official forum where you can comment on the multiple IP addresses all locating to Atlanta, and the suspicion that they're the same person, or group of people. Of course the thing there is that you need to be sure of yourself, and have as much evidence in your favour as possible.

I see that Sssscapegoat claims you're doxing people. That's nonsense as you replied - Wiki provides two different methods of geolocation for this very reason. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if letting this editor report me would be a good idea. I've already been warned by an admin not to call the editor's edits "malicious" just because he doesn't agree with me. But they are malicious. I've been observing that pattern of editing since August. I'm worried about getting banned if I keep editing and accused of edit warring. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dreadnok Twins: I found this in Recent changes. WP:EW clearly states An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense.

I understand that you feel your edits are correct and that you feel @Sssscapegoat is committing vandalism (I have no opinions on the content), but that is not a justification for edit warring, and you will face the edit warring penalties no matter the substance of the edits, assuming they're not reversions of obvious vandalism.

Now, WP:SPI, as @Chaheel Riens is suggesting: you'll need to provide a lot of evidence for your claims and be prepared for a protracted argument. That's not an easy path, and you may not need to go that far.

ANI (where disruptive editing is reported) recommends the following: Before posting a complaint about a user on this page: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility. Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page. Or try dispute resolution. Other options are given on the help navigation page. Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly.

You seem to have already been at their talk page, and the discussion between the two of you did not produce any results. Dispute resolution would be the logical next step for the two of you, in my opinion. I wish the two of you a speedy resolution in this conflict, Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

He is also claiming his edits are right and is able to revert them back with impunity, now that he's found the system. Will he face any penalties for biased edits and edit warring in kind? Dreadnok Twins (talk) 07:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, edit-warring applies to all parties. This is why I suggested you let him report you. When both are faced with an accusation it forces a level playing field. All edits are viewed equally, and you must be absolutely sure that your own will stand up to scrutiny. To paraphrase - "edit warring doesn't care why it is happening, only that it is happening." DR is probably best, I don't think 3O is applicable as there are more than two editors involved. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Just waiting to hear back on what penalties I'll be facing for edit warring. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 191

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jonchache (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

How is me watching a movie, seeing a reference, and adding it an Unsourced Entry?

I am not being sassy, I genuinely don't know - and a few hours later it says you think I am a sock puppet. OK?

I saw a phrase on a sign in a movie, Googled it, and then was genuinely delighted that it wasn't listed in the Pop Culture References, eager to make my own, paltry contribution to Wikipedia. And then it gets deleted and suggested that I am somehow abusing the system?

I didn't know I have to ask permission to post to Wikipedia, or I would have gone through the proper submission suggestion channels. Can you point me in that direction, so that I know in the future? Thank you! CassieLovesBacon (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Every couple of weeks somebody comes along and ignores the hidden text in that section that says "Do not add links or examples - such as Tron - here unless accompanied by reliable third party sources to justify inclusion. The TV Tropes page may be more welcoming of cataloging examples for their own sake". Very often the added text is very similar to the text that was removed previously because it didn't meet the criteria. The article history is full of examples of it being added - then removed for not meeting requirements. I'll assume good faith then, that you're not a sock puppet - and have dropped a welcome template onto your talk page. This is a standard welcome message, and includes several useful links that will help you learn how to edit and get along.

To quickly clarify about Tron and Klaatu - a reliable source is required not just to say that the phrase exists, but to say that it has been mentioned specifically outside the film by other (3rd party) sources. So, for example, a YouTube clip showing the sign isn't sufficient; we know it exists, but is it notable? In order to meet that criteria, a 3rd party source such as Roger Ebert (that's an example, not a requirement) is needed to show that the sign has been lifted out of context and deemed notable in it's own right. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

To add to the above, all additions to Wikipedia require a citation to a reliable source, except for minor edits such as spelling and grammar corrections. Carefully read WP:V before making any additional edits. Newcomers sometimes don't know this, but now you know. So please don't make another unsourced edit. And don't even think about creating a new account or using an anonymous IP to make the same edit. Wikipedia has the technology to know that one person is editing from two accounts. That will result in immediate loss of editing privileges with no further discussion. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I can only assume that people "think about creating new accounts" all the time for this stern suggestion, but please rest easy knowing that I have no intention to do so. Best wishes! CassieLovesBacon (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

All of that makes a lot of sense, and I understand it a lot better now; thank you! I saw the list of "training wheels" edits example, and will follow that learning process. This was just a fundamental misunderstanding on my part of "we know it exists, but is it notable?" I appreciate your comprehensive response. CassieLovesBacon (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Not entirely - there is some blame on me as well for assuming you to be a sock-puppet. It's unfortunate for you that your first edit turned out to be controversial and one that has been inserted/removed with such regularity that there is exasperation surrounding it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

You're a control freak

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There, I said it. Trippington (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Trippington, only when necessary. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zenith

Just reverting it as "bloat" seems heavy-handed in the extreme, I was largely following the level of detail on other notable comic series. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It's too much - and as I pointed out in the edit summary - is duplication of the already existing plot section. And incidentally, Carmona is listed as "M Carmona" in the credits, so it's not unreasonable for that in the infobox either. While checking I also noticed that lettering is done by "Johnny A" for Interlude III, so I've added that. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it wasn't unreasonable but then neither was expanding it to the full name either, you just didn't check when you were reverting stuff. TBH the vibe is you're one of those types and I didn't come here to EW or die on any hills so I'll leave the Zenith article as is, even if the body - for example - doesn't mention Lux who's effectively the main villain of the entire strip but does tell us where Red Dragon retired to. Let me know if you ever retire as its' gatekeeper, though xxx BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, I warned the user for their very uncollegial remarks. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Wait, how is that harrassment? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Refusal to engage in consensus and dialogue

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sextus Caedicius (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

(Sextus Caedicius (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC))

Vandalist

Stop vandalism 89.15.237.183 (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

That is indeed one of the things I do here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of The Daily Campus for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Daily Campus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Daily Campus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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 until the discussion has finished.

Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Headcrab

Chaheel, are you directly contesting GlatorNator's redirect of Headcrab? You didn't provide any policy reason for keeping the article. Just curious if you're claiming its a notable subject, or if you've reverted them on some sort of procedural grounds? If so, I would contest that. We do not need to procedurally revert bold redirects without a specific policy argument. -- ferret (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

That article has been like that for decade and per WP:BeFORE found nothing at scholarly books. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 17:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Ferret, article has been nominated for afd. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 12:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Per cent vs percent

Hello!

I am not at all convinced that "percent" is actually all that acceptable in BrE; the Collins and Oxford Dictionaries (the most popular and most esteemed respectively) regard "percent" as the American version. Google site searches of the major quality newspapers and broadcasters seems to show as much:

• Financial Times: 958,000 results for "per cent", 11,500 for "percent"
• Daily Telegraph: 275,000 results for "per cent", 17,200 for "percent"
• BBC News: 10,600 results for "per cent", 2,500 for "percent"
• The Guardian: 13,100 results for "per cent", 3,600 for "percent"

Many of the results for "percent" are direct quotes or referencing the television series Ten Percent. 𝔖𝔱𝔬𝔩𝔦𝔱𝔷 (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Daniels.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Clue / Cluedo

When you revert an edit, such as you did on the Clue game article, please could you explain your reasons in the edit summary? I'd like to know what were you based on to do so. Fma12 (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Fma12, the edit summary should explain it, but sure - you changed the engvar from "Cluedo" to "Clue", and removed the "Cluedo" logo from the infobox, leaving in the American variant. Whilst you relocated the "Cluedo" box art, the previous version was much better. Strictly speaking, (again - engvar) if any logo is to be removed, it should be the "Clue" variant, but it's acceptable to have both. Precedent has been set - see the Sega Genesis article that contains not only both "Genesis" and "Megadrive" logo, but also stacked images of a Mk1 JP Megadrive, and a Mk2 US Genesis. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation, it's much clearer now. I didn't want to be disruptive. Regards, Fma12 (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Many pages are not trustworthy

Many pages are not reliable for placing information on Wikipedia. Who knows if they are manipulated or not? And now you're going to tell me that something that was removed (which makes the British government very suspicious) is invalid? It is verified by the government of the Malvinas Islands itself. Could it be that they don't want to put it on to clean up their image or just because they don't want to? ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

ULIFOX 3XX, please redirect any comments to the Talk:Falklands War page where they belong, but your use of Malvinas Islands does make me question your motives and neutrality. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:41, 18 October 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) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CVG1983feb.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CVG1983feb.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

ZX Spectrum modes

Posted on DRN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Summary_of_the_discussion_so_far Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, could you do a small favour for me?

I'm terribly curious. I would like to ask you a question, I'm interested in your answer.

I think it is not an offensive question.

Is that OK? Z80Spectrum (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not a hard question, it is not a trick question. There is nothing special about the question. It's just my curiosity. Z80Spectrum (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Chaheel Riens.

I just got a nice idea about how to quickly and easily resolve our dispute.

About the talk page topics you have removed, I suggest that we simply archive them. It would be a perfectly acceptable solution for me.

We can just temporarily revert the deleted topics, and then we can archive them.

Is that acceptable for you? Z80Spectrum (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Now the DR has been raised it might be better to let it run and get other opinions on the matter. Also simply reverting and archiving really means that you get your way, as you're asking that your disputed content is not only restored but then archived where it can't be removed, challenged or edited at any point in the future. Sorry to appear the ogre and not wanting to compromise, but it doesn't seem to be a compromise considering the end result favours your stance even more than your original desire to restore the content to a non-archived talk page. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It' OK, it was just a suggestion. I understand why are you rejecting it. I thought it is worth a shot to ask. Z80Spectrum (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there something that I need to do at DRN?

What happens if the 48h limit runs out?

Why does everything seem stalled there at DRN? Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Everybody here is a volunteer, and have lives in the real world that are - when you get down to it - more important than Wikipedia. If things go your way you'll get your version. Or maybe not. If there's no response in 48 hours then we think of something else - or wait longer, which I'm prepared to do. I've interacted with Robert before in passing - he's to be respected. (Although that should be said of every editor on the project...) Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks.

Will the DRN be automatically closed if there are no changes in 48 hours, or do we need to keep it alive with some trivial change every day? Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

No idea - I've never been involved in one before this... Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that I have figured it out.

My interpretation is that you have to edit the section ("Zeroth statements by editors"). Don't forget to sign your addition with four tildes (~ ~ ~ ~).

Also, take a look at what Robert McClenon said to me in the teahouse: [6] Z80Spectrum (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Chaheel,

I estimate (but I might be wrong) that Robert wants you to answer his questions, in the same or similar way as I did, by editing the "First statements by editors" section.

It's unlikely that he will engage in a discussion about your reply, because he likely wants both of us to follow his procedure. You have to follow his rules if you want the discussion to continue.

If he wants, he will later ask you why you did what you did. Now, he just wants some answers from us, so that he can better understand what is happening. Z80Spectrum (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, that 26 KB removal of yours, that is a separate issue which might not be relevant here, because at DRN they discuss only content. We are at DRN too seek their opinion about WP:FORUM, WP:OR, WP:NOTHOWTO. Z80Spectrum (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Chaheel,

you have to answer Robert's questions. Otherwise, you leave me no choice but to report you to WP:AN. There I can also blame you for not attempting to WP:NEGOTIATE.

Please, just answer Robert's questions. Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Z80Spectrum, please don't resort to petty threats - There I can also blame you for not attempting to WP:NEGOTIATE is a very poor attempt to coerce me into action. I'm currently not very active on Wikipedia as my contributions history shows - if anything you'll see that the only contributions I have made lately have been to this topic, so I'm doing my best and have not been shy about discussing the subject. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Z80Spectrum (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct_od_Chaheel_Riens

Z80Spectrum (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:ZX Spectrum graphic modes for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. this was completely unhelpful and not a good use of an article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

VQuakr, I disagree. Z80Spectrum has accused an editor of being a scammer and a liar, based on discussion they've had on the Talk:ZX Spectrum graphic modes page. It would seem helpful to discussion that they quantify such accusations - using the evidence they claim to have - so we know who the scammer and liar is? I'm not sure I'm comfortable being involved in a discussion with aforesaid scammer and liar - are you? Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the sort of thing you can disagree on, see WP:TPG. If you've got a personal problem with an editor, take it to WP:ANI or similar drama board. VQuakr (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Z80Spectrum has made an accusation regarding the talk page - or specifically the editors contributing to it, and I would like clarification on that accusation. Right at the bottom of the pyramid it says "ad hominem - attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer". I'd just like to know which editor Z80Spectrum feels is a scammer and a liar. I don't have a problem with Z80Spectrum - I have a problem with their edits. Even back when they contributed as an IP address I left suggestions on their talk pages with links I hoped were useful, and have explained my reasoning behind my edits multiple times in multiple places. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Keep it out of article talk space. Talk them on their talk page or head back to ANI, which is where we can discuss this subject further if you disrupt article talk space with it again. VQuakr (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Weird that you're actively discouraging asking an editor to clarify who the potential scammers and liars are on a page that you're actively editing in a conversation that you're also active in, but whatever. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peugeot Boxer/Opel Movano/Renault Master debate

You are right. At the time of filming that special called "Wheeler Dealers: Trading Up", mr. Brewer drove an Opel Movano(at the time being a rebadged Renault Master, I agree, but now is a rebadged Fiat Ducato). Past might count in some situations. As I said, Opel/Vauxhall Movano was in 2014 a close relative to the Renault Master, sharing the bodywork, but in 2024, over 10 years since the special was filmed, the Movano is just a badge-engineered Fiat Ducato Luca Sebastian Mardale (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The past counts in this case - the article is describing what Brewer drove at the time of filming, and that was the Renault Master iteration of the Movano. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree Luca Sebastian Mardale (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The only thing I have to do is to agree it is true. Luca Sebastian Mardale (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

ZX Spectrum graphic modes - ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Z80Spectrum (talk) Z80Spectrum (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for misspelling your user ID in one of my posts. Yes, I think it will keep on going on until either they get their 26K restored or they get topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hermione

Hello!

I just wanted to give you a friendly heads-up that I made a change to the Hermione page that you might want to review. When you reverted a few of my edits recently, one of them was a header change. I made this edit again, but this time it wasn't by itself, but rather part of an effort to put all the appearances of the character into one section - novels, films and theatre. Please let me know if you find this edit acceptable. Thanks!

P.S. I didn't make any changes to citations, so all the changes listed must have happened automatically. Wafflewombat (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Canon

Hello again. I was hoping to speak with you about your assertion that Harry Potter and the Cursed Child is not canon. A quick Internet search reveals that Rowling has called it canon, although many fans wish that it wasn't. Here is one article about the topic.

Even if it wasn't canon, that doesn't mean it's not Ron's last appearance. Wikipedia takes a neutral point of view, so canonicity doesn't matter when documenting the appearance of a character. Wafflewombat (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

And yet the article only covers up to the Deathly Hallows as an appearance. You're right - Wikipedia takes a neutral point of view which also covers not including a stage play in the list of novels/films. If you feel strongly enough about it, bring it up on the talk page, but it won't be the first time it's been brought up - nor I expect the last. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Could you please explain how excluding the play from Appearances is a result of the neutral point of view policy?

Regarding the talk page, there is only one comment addressing this issue, in which two editors state that Cursed Child should be Ron's last appearance. If you oppose the change, I will not change it without discussion, but there is no history of opposition to it on the talk page. Wafflewombat (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Percy

Hey, I was hoping to talk with you about this edit. This sentence is subjective interpretation: "In direct contrast to his brothers, he is a stickler for rules and often pompous due to his love of authority, though he does have good intentions at heart." It's one editor's assessment of Percy's character and his intentions. If we are going to include this sentence we need to back it up with a reliable secondary source and provide attribution. An example might be, "In her book Characters of Harry Potter, author X describes Percy as a stickler for rules..." If appropriate quotes exist in the books we could say something like, "In Chamber of Secrets, Ron explains Percy's love of rules..."

Please let me know if this makes sense. Wafflewombat (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that sourcing is of course important, there's no reason to pick on that one sentence over all the others, especially when it's an overriding factor in Percy's depiction - albeit considerably downplayed in the films compared to the books:

• “We’re trying to standardize cauldron thickness. Some of these foreign imports are just a shade too thin — leakages have been increasing at a rate of almost three percent a year ... but unless some sort of international law is imposed we might well find the market flooded with flimsy, shallow-bottomed products that seriously endanger..."
• “I’ll come with you, Father,” said Percy importantly. “Mr. Crouch will need all hands on deck. And I can give him my cauldron report in person.”
• Harry could see at once why Percy idolized him. Percy was a great believer in rigidly following rules, and Mr. Crouch had complied with the rule about Muggle dressing so thoroughly that he could have passed for a bank manager
• “But maybe he doesn’t care ... it’d probably just make him admire Crouch even more. Yeah, Percy loves rules. He’d just say Crouch was refusing to break them for his own son.”
• “Percy would never throw any of his family to the dementors,” said Hermione severely.
• “I don’t know,” said Ron. “If he thought we were standing in the way of his career ... Percy’s really ambitious, you know...”

Just a couple of examples grabbed from my digital copies. I just feel that this might be one editor's assessment of Percy's character and his intentions. I accept that you're trying to improve the project - but so am I, and I'm not convinced that all your edits are doing that. With a certain amount of irony - and humour - I dare suggest that Percy's characteristics might be applied here as well. Just chill a bit. Yes, everything needs a source if challenged, but that doesn't mean you have to challenge everything. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my comments came off as overbearing. That was not my intention. I believe 100% that you are trying, like me, to improve Wikipedia. If anything I said gave the impression that I doubted your good intentions, then I apologize for that also.

When you say I don't have to challenge everything, are you saying we shouldn't try to make pages fully sourced? I've always had the impression that sourcing all content on a page is a worthy goal. Wafflewombat (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying pick your battles. Some of the things that you're challenging are pretty low down in the contention stakes - such as Percy's personality, and the name of the Defence against the Dark Arts classes while under Voldemort's reign. Percy's personality can be easily ascertained from reading the books, and there's a risk of picking up on every little trait becoming a case of both WP:BLUESKY and such an overdose of sources that the truly interesting ones will get lost in a sea of links. We'll end up with nothing but a huge list of quotes from the books (such as above) that confirm his personality, but massively pad out the article and it becomes TLDR - the opposite of the project's intention. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I understand your perspective on this. Thanks for being willing to engage in dialogue. Wafflewombat (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)