User talk:Chaheel Riens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:A man alone)
Jump to: navigation, search

How to write an article on wikipedia?[edit]

Hi Brother,

I'm new to wikipedia. If you could tell me how to write an article on it.

Thank you very much, Rajat RajatKrGarg (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there.
I've added a Welcome Template to your page - it contains a plethora of links which will be useful to a new editor. I'd also highly recommend you have a look at the Help Desk which will be able to offer better advice than I could.
Finally - you have a sandbox linked here User:RajatKrGarg/sandbox which you can use for all your editing tests, generally without fear of reprisal. You can see the sandbox between your "talk" and "preferences" link. I've taken the liberty of creating it for you, and adding a template with more links to help you out. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Plasticine trout[edit]

Not the greatest edit ever. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

About on a par with the edits that prompted it, I'd say. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Spurious Edit War Warning[edit]

I see you have dropped by my talk page to leave a stock warning of supposed 3RR violations over what you have termed "edit warring." The 3RR rule does not apply in the case of removing vandalism from Wikipedia, which I have been attempting to do for a couple of days now. Anyone with even the vaguest knowledge of 1990s video game history knows that the M2, Panther, and Jaguar II consoles were never released commercially, and one can perform a Google search to see the Jungle was cancelled in 2011 without a release; that's recent history. The other consoles were Japanese exclusives. This is not a content dispute, this is deliberately adding false info to an article. I will be removing your spurious notice from my page. Good day. Indrian (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

  • So, I only saw the message on my talk page and not the message you left on the 3DO talk page when I wrote the above. In hindsight, I may have been a little harsh here. That said, I do think you waded in without knowing the history. This anon has been placing false release date info into multiple obscure console articles. This has gone on for several days under multiple IPs, and he readds the info every time it is removed my me or others. That is clearly an agenda, as no one could possibly be that ignorant of the facts, and the fake release dates could not have come from any misinterpreted source. That is why AGF does not apply. I happened to revert yesterday while he was still on site, hence the flurry of exchanges between us. It was late in my neck of the woods, so I planned to get an admin involved today, which I have now done. Hopefully these edits will stop now. I really wish you had dug a little deeper into the edit history of the IP, for your warning to me really was uncalled for even if done with the best of intentions. Indrian (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you were being harsh. Ironically, the very accusation you level at me can be applied to your own post here.
My warning was specifically for the constant reversion of the IP editors claim of bankruptcy Vs absorption into another company, as I stated on the talk page. Let's also note that you may have been reverting, but you didn't warn the IP yourself, which is usually done - the first attempt at discussion was by me. I might add that if you had time to revert, you should also have had time to notify a mop-holder there and then rather than wait several hours to allow vandalism to potentially continue - admins I'm sure exist in time-zones other than your neck of the woods, but hey-ho. And given that the consoles you mention are both prototype only stage and esoteric, it would take somebody with more than "the vaguest knowledge of 1990s video game history" to know what they are, never mind their release status.
See what happens when you respond with vitriol? It just comes right back at you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


As part of a general tidy up of the miniskirt article I changed the lead image to one more neutral and appropriate for an encylcopedia article on miniskirts. I note from the talkpage that there had been an issue with using this particular model, so looked for something more appropriate. That you disagree with me is fine, and this is what happens on Wikipedia. Please, though, raise your concerns on the talkpage rather than restoring an inappropriate and controversial image. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. You might want to read up and understand the entire discussion there. That image is only "inappropriate and controversial" to you, and is in fact a replacement to a different one albeit featuring the same model. If you wish to change it, discuss by all means, but not with your preferred image in place while we do so. Copied to the talk page as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3[edit]

I am taking one last run at getting Emily Ratajkowski promoted to WP:FA in time for a 25th birthday WP:TFA on June 7th. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3 needs discussants. Since you have made at least 10 edits to the article, I am hoping you might give some comments.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi - Sorry, been on vacation. Ok, let's have a look over the next few days, eh? Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Any chance you might resume your involvement?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

2000 AD[edit]

Thanks. '''Attilios''' (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Attention: Potions in Harry Potter will be placed for AfD on June 4, 2016[edit]

(You are receiving this notice due to your having made some edits to the article discussed or its talk page sometime during its history)

In November of 2007 Potions in Harry Potter was deleted as a the result of a deletion discussion due to its failure of WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and other issues. On June 4, 2015 the article was recreated from content then currently existing on the Magical objects in Harry Potter article. A discussion followed regarding the appropriateness of the recreation. An attempt was made to return this article to a redirect, which was undone a day later. Some months later, a notice was placed on the article's talk page indicating the article would be placed for deletion. A few days ago, the article was placed for proposed deletion. This too was undone.

Throughout the history of the article, which spans more than a decade, it has never had any references. It has always been written in in-universe style. No outside universe perspective has ever been provided. As of June 2016, it will have been tagged for both of these problems for a year. I have asked, begged, and pleaded with people to rewrite this article to no avail. As the article stands (and has always stood), it continues to fail WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. There have been suggestions to merge the content back to Magical objects in Harry Potter, but this completely fails to address the failures noted. Where the content exists, either in its own article or as part of another, matters not. The issue is the content itself.

Barring a massive rewrite of the entire article into something that is encyclopedic in its treatment of the subject, I will be placing it for deletion on June 4, 2016. This notice is being sent as a last ditch attempt to find one or more people willing to do something to fix the serious problems extant in this content. Thank you for your attention, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4[edit]

You were involved in one of the prior WP:FAC or WP:PR discussions about Emily Ratajkowski. The current discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4 needs more discussants. In my prior successful FACs, success has been largely based on guidance at FAC in reshaping the content that I have nominated. I would appreciate discussants interested in giving guidance such guidance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

RE: Ron Weasley[edit]

First off, I would like to point out the only one violating WP:3RR is Mezigue - a fact that I was the one to originally point out in the edit comments. Did you not check? I guess you "can hardly call that repeatedly" because you haven't bothered to check. You haven't left a message on Mezigue's page at all, nor have you responded to my edit summary comments. Honestly, I will repeat - I've made attempts to discuss this. No response. If you're going to pretend that Mezigue was cooperative or responsive to my message, then we're done here because I still have yet to see why my willingness to be cooperative and work as a team is getting flack whereas you haven't responded to Mezigue's behaviour. It's a two-way thing. I even said I appreciate Mezigue finally willing to talk and discuss and work together, until they stopped responding and went back to break WP:3RR. I do not appreciate the hostile message left on my page, and only my page. At the end of the day, I was following WP:RF and wasn't causing any harm or damage.

In all honesty, I did not see the message you left upon the article's talk page. I felt I justified my points enough in those summaries and with Mezigue's page. I really don't care enough to continue adding to the article or discussing this matter, especially considering the behaviour I'm seeing displayed almost entirely falls under WP:OWN. Feel free to continue editing as you wish. I wish you all the best. -- S talk/contribs 19:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

If you don't bother to check the article talk page for commentary even when you specifically ask for discussion then you are entirely at fault for any failings you may see here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Fantastic, way to completely disregard every other valid point I just made. You know full well I asked for discussion ages ago and was not aware of the recent one two days ago. Take it easy. -- S talk/contribs 23:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I did not disregard your other points - they are (to make a pun) pointless:
  • You made a single request on Mezigue's page - using edit summaries asking another editor to discuss rather than stopping your own editing as per WP:BRD is not "discussion"
  • All your other comments (bar one) also fall under the above. Despite your own opinion - a single post on a users talk page is not discussion - and given that you obviously have Ron's page watchlisted you should have been flagged that his talk page had been changed as well - by an editor who had reverted you. Again - if you are not paying attention to (some might say rather blatant) attempts to discuss things, then your arguments automatically fall on shaky ground.
  • WP:RF is an essay, and not policy. In universe perspective is policy. Regardless - I could say that Readers First requires the absence of the data you entered - it's confusing for readers to be told that Ron has children and then to have to read through (literally) thousands of pages of text until they find out that the children appear 19 years after the series has set in the last paragraph of the last book.
  • Reversion of disruptive editing - ie constantly adding material that is controversial and has been added against established consensus, especially when the editor adding it won't discuss on the talk page as WP:BRD requires is not considered edit warring, ergo there was no need to template Mezigue. With regard to WP:OWN - "how people automatically invoke WP:OWN anytime someone challenges their changes." - which is a comment directed at me a while ago, but holds true here as well... Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
"Again - if you are not paying attention to (some might say rather blatant) attempts to discuss things, then your arguments automatically fall on shaky ground." Seriously? Mezigue made no attempt to discuss. I did. Multiple times. I made more of an attempt to discuss than Mezigue, who stopped responding to me. Whose fault is that? At the end of the day, I said I won't edit the article anymore because you're falling under WP:OWN. I've got a life to live. Enjoy yours. -- S talk/contribs 17:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I reiterate my point: You left a single message on a users talk page - not the article page in question, and when I got involved and began the discussion on the talk page you admit you didn't notice it, despite the fact that it was hardly a hidden or hard to spot thing - unlike your comment on Mezigue's page which I only spotted after checking your edit summary to see if you really had been trying to discuss it.
Still, at least you've said you'll stop adding the info, and perhaps when you get involved with other controversial additions on Wikipedia you'll discuss on talk pages instead of edit summaries or user pages - so that's a result. I'll get back to my great life now - thanks for asking. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


Sorry about that. I was actually trying to revert this edit, but you saved an edit in between me opening the page and saving my reversion, such that I inadvertently and unknowingly reverted your edit. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 12:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


Thanks for your comment, you already do better than many others who don't explain I was questioning what was wrong with the other edit, rather than the one you mention. By the way, how can you be neutral editing that article. if it has clearly a point of view (pro-it, it does promotion on the subject). With that in view, how can one be expected to add any criticism or differing opinion, or anything to counterbalance it, without taking another point of view, the contrary one? What's more, I think it should be allowed, but none of the editors and watchdogs of that article will ever agree to hear the slightest criticism. I do what I can, but it sucks to be alone against a crowd spitting upon you. I wish that could be debated — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still not sure which edit you're referring to, but I assume it's one of the BDSM themed ones.
  • This edit to BDSM broke the image displaying, and could be consdiered censorship, and it also added the decidedly non-neutral and opinionated term "hypocritical" to the sentence "The fundamental (hypocritical) principles for the exercise of BDSM require that it should be performed with the informed consent of all involved parties."
  • Your second edit here to BDSM in culture and media added inappropriate links to the "See Also" section. By very definition BDSM is consensual, and introduction of links and See Also such as Rape and Mental Disorder is - again - non-neutral behaviour.
  • Finally, the edit to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not here is unlikely to gain any traction - can you put forward any articles that meet your criteria, or are a how-to guide to promote your claim? Bear in mind that I'm already aware of your opinion of the above two pages - and they fall way short of your claim.
If you seriously want to include either edits, I'd suggest you start a topic on the talk page of each article before attempting re-insertion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Louise Mensch[edit]

I've asked for more eyes on this dispute, at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Opinions_about_these_two_edits_to_Louise_Mensch_would_be_appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Claim of sock puppetry on 'Gun Show Loophole'[edit]

My understanding is that it's inappropriate to speculate on matters of sockpuppetry with a peer in article talk. There is an appropriate venue for investigating sockpupperty. It's not really Good Faith to make such claims without hard evidence. My understanding may be flawed however. Anastrophe (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

In this instance I'm making no claims of good faith, and I fully believe that the editor is bypassing a block so that they can still edit. My reasons for this are as follows:
  • Not only are both IP addresses identical bar the last octet, but (because of this) both IP addresses geolocate to the same location (as can be found from their contribution pages) - Kansas, and are provided by the same ISP - T-Mobile USA.
  • is currently blocked for disruptive editing, and - which has never before edited the contested article - has begun to contribute instead. The duck test exists for this purpose - if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then it's probably a duck. In this case it looks like the previous IP editor, and it sounds like the previous IP editor - it probably is the IP editor.
  • You are correct in one thing though - strictly this isn't sock-puppetry, because sock-puppetry is only really applicable to registered editors who use multiple accounts, instead this is a case of IP-hopping and block evasion - which is no less serious. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
IP addresses geolocating to a US state, even if it is the last octet, doesn't inherently mean they are anywhere remotely close to each other - Kansas is larger than England and Scotland combined, for example, and IP delegation isn't necessarily confined within a single region, particularly on mobile network. But that's all an aside. Anastrophe (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Anastrophe, it's not a matter of both IPs being in Kansas; they're both in the same tiny /25 range. That's apart from the behavioral similarity. I've blocked the range for a few days. It won't necessarily help, since the ISP is as you say mobile, but one can try. Reverting obvious block evasion such as this on sight may be more useful, which everyone should feel free to do. Use an informative edit summary (one that blames me, if you like). Bishonen | talk 09:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC).

Uncivil edit summary[edit]

Honestly, I'm not trying to pick on you, though it probably seems that way. Your edit summary on the Gun Show Loophole article revert is uncivil by any measure, and lacking AGF. The user may or may not be an ignoramus. But with an edit history going back only two days, this is definitely Biting the Newcomer. Please take a step back and reflect. Thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, and as above - no intent for Good faith was meant. If the editor in question knew enough to invoke Original Research in their edit summary as reasonable grounds for removal, then they also should know enough to have a) checked the article history to see if there were extenuating circumstances and b) checked the talk page, and also to have been aware of BRD on top of those.
I don't believe that this is an editor new to Wikipedia even though it is an account new to Wikipedia; their somewhat limited editing history shows a knowledge of process - page creation, contribution to AFD's, welcoming other users - and of course the above-mentioned use of OR to justify content removal.
As I have already mentioned, the removal of content while it is being discussed is one of the things that really winds me up, and I have little sympathy for editors who blatantly choose to be either ignorant or arrogant of one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia's existence - BRD and collaboration. Should the consensus go against the image, then I'll subsequently agree and defend that consensus - but we haven't got there yet and those editors who are trying to force their version before consensus is reached are only slowing things down by making others waste time reverting and explaining why they've reverted. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
That's all well and good. Uncivil remains uncivil. That's what I would like you to reflect upon. That's all. Anastrophe (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I did reflect upon it, and still think that it was an appropriate response to a foolish post, a post that did nothing but inflame and provoke an already volatile situation. You are quite welcome to hold an alternate viewpoint, but sometimes an iron fist is better than a velvet glove. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Harry Potter Revert[edit]

Thanks for that revert, I wasn't trying to violate WP:ENGVAR. I totally googled "instalment" after I saw your edit summary, I didn't even realize that was a British way of spelling it. Learned something new. -- Dane2007 talk 11:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Destruction Factor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biodome (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) 10:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


This level of editing by you and Linguist is very personal and unnecessarily petty, just contribute to the discussion constructively, stop trying be "better" than others and stop trying to impose that you think you are right. Stop assigning motive and stop assigning allegations. none of this good faith, and none of it is constructive. It seems really bad that you have gone on to attack me on the talk page of the Murder of Milly Dowler, it seems you hve an axe to grind against me, please stop as it s just so stupid. I am sure you will not see this as anything but attacking you, but it is not. It is simply saying act collaboratively, even when you disagree with another user. Sport and politics (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Irony - posting what I see as a personal attack on my page, complaining about what you see as a person attack on another page.
Double irony - asking somebody to "act collaboratively, even when you disagree with another user" when you have no intention of doing so yourself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I suggest talking a good look at the current editing on the page and the discussion on the infobox between Linguist and myself, you are the only person not acting constructively on that talk page. Sport and politics (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Triple irony - not being able to see that there is a distinction between the infobox discussion, and the title within the infobox, nor being able to see that this distinction is the bone of contention I have with you. I have no real opinion over the infobox, hence have not been involved in the discussion.
Whilst you have made some collaborative effort over the infobox, you have not done so regarding the title, and are accusing two other editors (of which I'm one,) of edit warring when they revert you, yet fail to see that two editors reverting the changes of one editor could also be seen that the one editor is just as guilty, if not more so. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

La Senza[edit]

Hello. I work for the La Senza home office. The information on this page is very out of date so I was attempting to edit. Are you able to revert back to the version I had edited? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've copied your above comments to the La Senza talk page where they'll be seen by a wider - and more applicable - audience. Please continue any discussion thataway - thanks! Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Why my edit was deleted?[edit]

I have added content in Persona non grata about recent incidents between India and Pakistan from a trusted newspaper 'The Indian Express' but it was removed. What is the reason? So in future i can take care of that. (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I notify you of dispute resolution on jerrycan issue[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastdingo (talkcontribs) 00:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Chaheel Riens. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)