User talk:Chaheel Riens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Removed, and replaced over at Talk:CDisplay as it has more meaning there.

Re:Talk:Bikini waxing[edit]

Wikipedia:Notaforum applies to articles, not talk pages. The explanation says: "You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles." The editor in question was indeed discussing the subject and was discussing it in line with content of the article. Therefore, no matter how much you or I or anyone despises his/her viewpoint, it is not wise to remove the post. A more preferably action would be answer the post with facts and references. I am already looking up references to that end.

On the other hand, the policy on talk page vandalism says: "Illegitimately deleting or editing other users' comments. However, it is acceptable to blank comments constituting vandalism, internal spam, or harassment or a personal attack. It is also acceptable to identify an unsigned comment."

BTW, he/she apparently was right in stating that there is indeed a huge influence of the porn industry in popularizing genital waxing. I have posted my reply there after a quick research. Aditya(talkcontribs) 07:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong. notaforum includes talkpages, as clarified in the very first line of the talkpage; "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." It is also covered under soapboxing - "This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." (my emphasis) I am disappointed that such an experienced editor saw fit to feed the troll, even in rebuttal.
The editor in question was not discussing the article, but instead opinionating on the subject - there's a subtle difference. Or not so subtle in their case, but you see my point, I hope. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I see your point. And, I find it quite funny that we are trying to fling policy text at each other. On a regular day I probably would have done the same as you, and would probably have added a scolding template to the annons talk page. That editor was indeed whining and ranting. But, as happens, I was feeling extra good that day, which in turn has helped me find some very good stuff online that can be used in the article.
Now, with that cleared, can I request you to take an interest in the article? For starters, should it be "bikini waxing" or should it be "genital hair removal" or something in that line, with sub-headers for bikini waxing, bikini line etc.? I am not sure, and not a lot many people are interested in the article. Cheers. I believe I have met another friend in the community. Aditya(talkcontribs) 12:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure - no hard feelings at all, on both sides I hope. Ironically, the poster met me on a bad day, hence my approach. Any other day, and I would have probably either just ignored it or followed a similar tack to yours, but that's the way it goes.
With regard to the second comment - about the article, sure (again) I'll take a closer look - as you can tell it's already on my watchlist. However, what with it being (nearly) Christmas, it will probably not be until the New Year. Initially, I would say that the article title is sufficiently accurate, given that the topic of the article is not about hair removal generally, but the specific method - waxing - of hair removal. There is little or no mention of any other forms - shaving, laser, creams - even in passing. To change the article name would be inaccurate - or at least the article would need to cover other forms of hair removal first. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
True. Probably we need to set the context more carefully, specifically when dealing with history and culture, as these parts of the subject has shown tendencies to get into generic information on genital hair removal. Also, the contextual stuff probably needs better crafting and structure, and not outright removal. Say what? Happy New Year. Aditya(talkcontribs) 10:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Warning your opponent and then continuing the edit war is remarkably bad faith. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Toddst1 (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Chaheel Riens (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

In the context of this issue I don't consider that I was edit warring. I accept that I removed information several times (and that another editor re-inserted same), but I did this as I tried to leave the page at the point where discussion had been started - once it became apparent that the other editor would not leave the page at point of discussion I stopped. I mentioned this in the topic I started, twice. I was under the impression that a page should be left "as is" at the point of discussion. The page had flip-flopped several times between stages, before I started the discussion. I removed the information then asked the editor to justify its inclusion. I have been involved in other discussions where exactly the opposite has been required of me [1] - which is it? On a related note, the blocking editor has closed the discussion regarding the topic without addressing the other issues that I asked for help with - what is the process when an editor with clear COI issues edits a page? (Although I see the other editor has been templated.) What is the process for recreating a page that has previously been deleted? Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It never ceases to amaze me how many editors who have been blocked for edit warring appeal against the block on the grounds that they think their editing was "right". Edit warring means repeatedly reverting on the same page, and it doesn't matter how convinced you are that the edit you kept making was right. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

WP:OUTING[edit]

You recently reposted information speculating on the real life identity of an anonymous IP address. I realize that you are not the original poster of that information but doing so is considered attempted WP:OUTING and is grounds for immediate blocking. Toddst1 (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, I take issue with the statement "...but doing so is considered attempted WP:OUTING and is grounds for immediate blocking." I have just read through the WP:Outing policy, and it states "Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block." My copying of the information posted was simply to consolidate all the discussions into a single - and more logical - place. I don't see how it could be considered an intentional act of (attempted) outing or to be malicious in intent. What benefit is there for me to out the IP editor? Had I attempted to use the information to further my arguments then perhaps so, but outing never even occurred to me when I raised the ANI issue - or I would have mentioned it there as well. (Probably inadvertantly landing myself in more trouble.) Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Let me rephrase: Don't do that. Toddst1 (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Let me rephrase: Assume that I didn't mean to. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I alphabetized the Enders Game categories[edit]

Should have said alphacats. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

why revert? Unnecessary, and badly inserted.[edit]

Oops... I must have somehow confused edits and thought that silliness was added to the article instead of being removed. It was also my intention to remove it, obviously. -- Lyverbe (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

PlayStation (console)[edit]

Thought I'd clarify the reason for reverting you. First of all, the PS-X name was not common to the public, and therefore doesn't carry enough weight to belong in the lead. The lead should contain a summary of the most important aspects of the article, including other common names the subject is known by. I don't feel this is one of them. Another reason for the revert is that the proposed text makes the opening sentence feel like a clumsy run-on. If you feel it really needs to be included, let's discuss on the article's talk page. If it's decided to keep it in the lead, then we can certainly come up with better wording. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

ZX Spectrum[edit]

Crikey, I'd forgotten all about that program on Horizons, even though I can remember getting the tape, setting the volume, going through the keyboard exercises, and playing Thro' The Wall a lot. It was over 31 years ago, to be fair. Good revert. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Samantha Bond[edit]

See the talk page, Talk:Samantha Bond. There is no fair use rationale for the image. It's been tried in the past and it never works. I don't know much about image use but I know that this image has been tried on this page before and it's been removed. At least a couple times. If this worked, then every article about every actor or actress would have an image. But they don't. Because you can't use an image of a character that they played unless the actor happens to be dead and no other means of getting an image is possible. Dismas|(talk) 09:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

MH370[edit]

Thanks for linking NTSB. Your summary was a little condescending "I had no idea what those initials stood for. Chances are, other non-US residents won't either". Do you think I am one? Leondz (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea. Are you? Whilst NTSB may be common knowledge for US citizens or those in the industry, there is - as I stated - a good chance that others will not know the meaning, just as I would not expect US citizens to know what RNLI means. Acronyms are hard enough to decipher in ones own country, never mind others. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I appreciate that. Acroynms ought to be unpacked. You don't need to make nationalist or anti-nationalist -- let alone factually incorrect -- assertions while doing it, though. To answer your question, visit my user page. Leondz (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
My comment was neither intended to be "nationalist or anti-nationalist", nor is it factually incorrect - by which you imply that everybody regardless of nationality or profession does indeed know what the initials "NTSB" stand for. I assure you - they do not.
I am not sure what you are driving at with your comments. I assume that you are not a US citizen, and do know what NTSB stands for, probably due to an interest in the field. This makes you the exception, not the rule - for which I acknowledge you should be congratulated, however it should also make you even more aware that your knowledge is specialised and not likely to be shared by others.
I made a perfectly reasonable statement that a US specific term only used within a limited area of interest would not be known by people not of that country. The fact that you do know what the initials stand for does not make my comments condescending, and frankly I don't think they are worth expending this much effort over them either, if you do, then the problem most likely lies in your corner, not mine. I'm done here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Driving at, that to criticise editors who are non-US for including terms you think are only understood by US residents is a harsh - and wrong - generalisation. Leondz (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
You are so out of touch with reality in the above statement that I retract my comment I'm done. Where on earth do you get the idea that saying non-us residents may not understand a country specific acronym automatically translates into a criticism of either a) those who do, and/or b) editors who use the acronym regardless of their origin?
I have not checked the article history to such a degree, but I'm guessing that you were the editor that added the acronym in the first place? Don't take it personally. There was no slight or criticism to the contributing editor intended in the edit summary, and your bringing attention to the summary has resulted in a mini-Streisand effect, in that I now feel obliged to defend my own point of view, which regrettably means running counter to yours. Once again, I believe the odds are stacked in my favour with regard to the statement - otherwise I would not have made it.
The generalisation is based upon an observation that I wager holds true. "NTSB" is not known commonly throughout the non-US world. And based on limited Google search results - it's not commonly known within the US either. This makes my comment accurate and reasonable. Any belief that it is not (and that it is some kind of slight to those who do) is something you need to deal with - not me.
Re-reading the above, it's obvious that I'm just repeating what I stated in my original reply, and that kind of worries me in that if you didn't understand the implications the first time, you won't the second either. Still - hope springs eternal. No condescension or insult intended, but ironically I considered your response to be equally condescending towards me in a personal sense. (Hm, don't take it personally, Chaheel...) Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Quazatron image[edit]

Hi. I had a look at File:Wanted Monty Mole.jpg and removed the non-free reduce template. There is nothing wrong with the image width and you shouldn't hesitate to remove the template yourself. Wikipedia's manual style allows a maximum width of 300px for lead images (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Size) so it shouldn't of been tagged. However the height can only go to a maximum of 500px which I guess is also something to keep in mind but obviously doesn't apply in this situation. Salavat (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Removing my message[edit]

Hi, Chaheel Riens, I noticed that you removed a message of mine saying...No place for nudge-nudge, wink-wink, you-know-who here...

Just so you know, that message of mine wasn't intended for spreading rumours. And it certainly wasn't intended for offence. If that message of mine doesn't belong there then that's okay :) C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"states it as" vs "states it is" on A View to a Kill[edit]

I'll grant that it might not have been a typo, in that the original editor's error could have been grammatical rather than typographical, but it definitely wasn't "correct before". "As" is only appropriate if attached to a verb related to Moore holding an opinion on the film ("Moore sees it as his least favourite" or "Moore views it as his least favourite"). With the verb "state", which is about the words Moore has actually said, it's not; we could no more use "as" with "stated" than we could use it with "said" ("Moore has said it is his least favourite film" vs "Moore has said it as his least favourite film"). It would probably be more elegant to include "that" (Moore has stated that A View to a Kill is his least favourite film"), but my copyeditor's instinct when I saw the grammatical error was honestly just to correct it with the least disruption to the original sentence. (Additionally, adding "that" earlier in the sentence would necessitate, for aesthetics, slightly rewriting the clause "and mentioned that he was mortified" later in the same sentence to avoid repetition.)

Anyhow, I'm reinstating my correction, though of course I'm open to it being further edited for taste. Sorry for the longwinded and somewhat pompous explanation here, but it struck me as better than attempting to shoehorn it into an edit summary, where it would be necessarily truncated and would probably come off as somewhat curt. Binabik80 (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a grammatical error at all. Your edit, Binabik80, introduced a factual error, which is much worse. Furthermore, your subsequent reversion re-introduced that error, and made you guilty of edit warring, which is unhelpful. See WP:BRD for reference, and please use it as a guide to future editing practice. - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Preserve Truth[edit]

Distinct minority or whatever don't worry my dear friend. God is not voted on a talk page. Nor his qualities. Your friends,Redtiger and some other geniuses all failing to understand a simple fact that is Oneness. No worries!!! It's also very clear that you cannot deny the fact you and me are born due to a mother. That is the ultimate reality of this world. You cannot deny this fact. God and his qualities are equal to this reality. You and some few handpicked good people like you want to see your ego getting won. I appreciate your sincerity towards a thankless job.If you want, i have nothing in accepting the fact that you are more knowledgeable than me. It's true. But when u don't know something try to learn it and see it emphatically. It's not that he is a Hindu god or bigger than everyone. It's totally absurd. Hinduism is a way of life and not a religion. Never see it through Human angle or through a country's(especially India) culture. Sexual-ism is an aspect of man and not god. Corrupting a content which has to be respected is not good. It's just like hitting our own mother and father or someone who is close to our heart. If this job(preserving truth) cannot be done by good and capable people like you. Then I am sure none can do it. Hope i did not hurt you.Always a well wisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skandasol (talkcontribs) 10:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

not offensive username[edit]

Other unwitting Wikipedias were oblivious to my username. As such it should persist. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unhex(46 75 63 6b 20 79 6f 75 21) (talkcontribs) 06:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Chaheel Riens. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 09:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

new category category:Encrypted usernames[edit]

I created the above category for us oddball types. Hope that's okay. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unhex(46 75 63 6b 20 79 6f 75 21) (talkcontribs) 02:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Encrypted usernames has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Dwpaul Talk 02:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Leggings. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  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; 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. BMK (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I've requested help at DR Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
As I have suggested at the Help Desk, since BMK is ignoring your request for dispute resolution and says that there is consensus against adding the image, then (regardless of whether there is or is not consensus about the image), your next step can be a Request for Comments, which clarifies consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Cold fusion[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

~~

AC power plugs and sockets[edit]

Hi, you recently commented at the talk page of AC power plugs and sockets, regarding my reversions of the completely erroneous edits being made by ZH8000. I presume that you did not check that editors claims or you could not have failed to observe that their edits to the article (and their comments to me) were nonsense.

You may have noticed that I have now completely rewritten the Swiss section with more detailed information, laid out in what I believe is a more logical fashion, and with references to support all that I have written.

It would be very helpful if you could check what I have written, and if you find that it is in accordance with the references given, to endorse it on the talk page.

Many thanks. FF-UK (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)