User talk:Chaheel Riens

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

Casual (subculture)[edit]

Because the fact that it started in Liverpool is well documented (as stated), whilst the dubious claim that it was already on the way elsewhere isn't. As i have already said, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and a chance to cite your info. if you want to keep it then cite it..

  1. The issue is your poor choice of words. You cannot make a claim that something started in place "A" and at the same time claim that it was already present in place "B". Additionally, the "Perry boys" source states that Manchester also had a casual scene form the middle of the seventies.
  2. I couldn't argue the point under my 'Ghmyrtle' username, because it's not my username. My username is Chaheel Riens. Accusing editors of sock-puppetry is unlikely to win you friends and influence people to your argument. I'll let it slide this time and not take it to ANI, but you might as well consider yourself warned. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about making friends or influencing people. Despite your subtle,though basically transparent attempts at trying to convince me it is. Otherwise you'd be realising and addressing the fact that actually, someone else chose to ask for relevant reasons to justify leaving in unsubsantiated contributions . No, this is about a lot of unsubstantiated flight of fancy attempting to undermine appropriately referenced, well documented (the perry boys included) fact. The issue about the whole article no-longer making any sense stems from someone restructuring fully referenced, undisputed, well documented facts in an attempt at shoehorning in unsubstantiated, non cited personal opinions. Some of the wording has been added (your point "A") by this contributor also, which as a result obviously makes the original text from the original contributor, but then left behind by the unsubstantiated contributor now seem contradictory. The article made perfect sense before this delusional contribution, just as you no doubt suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talkcontribs) 09:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing the original choice of words, but those that you added. They were poor and made no sense.
The fact that you are still accusing Ghmyrtle and I of being the same user is no longer acceptable. I'm going away for the weekend, so I'll give you until I get back on Sunday to realise the seriousness of such claims and strike those comments, otherwise it'll be off to AN or ANI. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

But they wasn't poor and made perfect sense unless read in the context of something that had already been re-edited from the original text then left there by someone who had reverted the original text. You seem to think "Although most football fans associate Liverpool fans with....." It wasn't. Don't be waiting around for the weekend to finish, my friend. I can 100% guarantee right now i won't be thinking about anything of the sort over the next two days. As I've already told your worst. I have plenty of legitimate reasons for suspicion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talkcontribs) 16:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You mean they "weren't poor", not "wasn't poor". Anyhoo - report filed at wp:ani, as per your request. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No, that isn't what i mean, and if that's all you have then lots of luck. I look forward to it

Really? Hm. Instead of waiting for replies either here or on your own talkpage - please justify your comments over on the WP:ANI thread here - [1] - which is a better place to discuss. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC

All in hand, mate. Has been since late Saturday night.

Given that your only edits to Wikipedia "since late Saturday night" were two to Orduin's talkpage - one of which was shying away from actually presenting any evidence - the pointless comment above, and a rollback revert to the Casuals page, I somehow doubt your veracity.
In fact, the only one who seems to be doing any investigation on your claim is me - see Orduin's talk page for diffs, and other assorted evidence. And I'm only doing it to highlight the absurdity of it, and I will continue to do so until you redact. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Competitors and "hypercars" and such[edit]

Noticed your edit at Koenigsegg Agera. Thanks. I wasn't sure how to handle the recent edits of User:James British and others. Similar edits also at Nissan GT-R, LaFerrari, Pagani Huayra, McLaren P1, etc. If there's a good version, could we just revert to before these latest flurries? --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 14:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Eh, now that I take a look, probably just better to remove the Competitors section in those other articles at this point? --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 14:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it was happening on other pages - those two are just watchlisted. I suppose it's logical that it would be done though. I concur with your latter thought - just remove the entire sections. I'll have a look now in fact. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Done. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I used to keep a closer eye on those articles but I'm now considering removing them from my watchlist. It's too much for me sort out all the unsourced changes that occur. I am not nearly knowledgeable on the subject as your average car enthusiast, gearhead, or even what my moniker might imply. Take care and thanks again. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 16:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Just my opinion, but I think that a non-expert is sometimes the best person to watchlist articles and remove cruft. Experts get too bogged down in the minutae (spelling?) and consider every last detail to be essential, including such things as competitors in this case. It's sometimes for the best to look at an article or section, and say "Nah, don't get it." - Especially when unsourced. By default as I've edited those articles they'll be in my watchlist, so I'll keep a passing eye on them.
I confess I'm probably guilty of that myself when it comes to things like Top Gear and Harry Potter - two areas I seem to focus on. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Humanity and its foibles[edit]

Hello Chaheel, I noticed your reply at WP:AN/EW, and I am considering continuing the conversation here, in a more friendly environment. The viewpoint of an alien psychologist and a great understander of humanity and its foibles would be something we both could learn from. Would you be interested in that? — Sebastian 19:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Ha - you're only the second person to know who Chaheel really is. Most people who express opinion seem to think Chaheel is an Indian woman, but I have no idea where that came from. Anyhoo - thanks for the Olive branch, but I've decideed to back off. Nobody's going to change their opinion, and it's just dragging the encyclopedia down. Although I still object to the images removal, I'll not revert anymore. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of hooligan firms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Fife (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) 08:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Top Gear grammar[edit]

WP:BRD is an essay. So is WP:CIR. If you are going to change grammar on articles you should make sure you know what you are doing. Anyone can make a mistake but you should be thanking me for fixing your mistake, what, three times? Not taking offence. --John (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

If you choose to ignore an essay that's up to you. I do thank you for correcting the mistake, but I don't thank you for your disregarding an established method of working on Wikipedia, especially when it wasn't only me who was initially incorrect.
However, I'll tell you what isn't an essay - WP:NPA, and your implication that I'm incompetent because I asked for clarification of a grammatical term, then wished to follow the BRD process while that clarification was outstanding, is most definitely not good etiquette. I can only assume that you are using the suggestion of CIR as an insult because it's quite obviously a moronic claim to make, cannot have been made in serious vein, and so must have been made as a subtle jab.
Such behaviour from an experienced editor - an administrator no less - to another experienced editor is extremely and undeniably poor form. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Where did you "ask... for clarification of a grammatical term"? Questioning your competence for restoring a clear grammar error into an article is not a personal attack, any more than your expressing your opinion that my actions were "poor form". --John (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
So you really are accusing me of incompetence over a simple error? Do you truly believe that it is acceptable to point an (experienced) editor in the direction of a page that specifically says in the second line "Be very cautious when referencing this page, as it can be very insulting to other editors."
I have accepted that I was wrong, having misread the line in question - as did another editor - however your method of dealing with it is not what I would expect from a mop-holder. And incidentally, I'm not sure that "restoring a clear grammar error into an article" is good grammar. But hey, what would I know? Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Warp drive[edit]

I concur. It was phrased confusingly. I was trying to provide clarification in the two edits immediately prior to yours, but my contributions (although acknowledged to be of good faith) were arbitrarily tossed without consideration. May your edits survive longer than mine did.

To your point, there is a parallel in 20th century technology: a present day pure-electric car is more efficient than a petrol burner in concept, but not in practice, and won't be until we invent batteries which can deliver more miles per recharge than a gas tank can deliver per fill-up. Similarly, in 2063, the engines of the Vulcan ship may have been based on a less efficient concept than that of Cochrane's first flight engine, but that Vulcan ship's engines were perhaps the 10,000th such engines built and refined over a span of centuries. Cochrane's first engine was not refined. Even the first warp 2 ships based on Cochrane's design were shaky. Archer's NX-01 was only just beginning to approach the reliability of any standard ship of the line from Vulcan or Andor, and its battle worthiness was still far behind. By Kirk's NCC-1701, one gets the impression that Earth technology has eclipsed that of the other Federation members, though perhaps not. Are U.S. rifles truly better than German rifles, or is it simply more sensible to standardize on one common specification for ammunition and spare parts? Either could explain the Constitution class Intrepid being manned by an all-Vulcan crew.

The Warp drive page could be improved, and I was once eager to lend my best effort, but what's the use if self-appointed Organians keep raiding the game? A shame. It would have been glorious. LLAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


I hope you still remember that article. I has just been promoted to be a GA. I thought you would like to know. Aditya(talkcontribs) 16:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed - thanks for letting me know. Really though any - if not all - credit deserves to go your way: The amount of work put in there (having just looked through the talk page) is colossal. I had to check, the last time I edited there was in February, and that was just a reversion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Good faith?[edit]

Thanks for reverting the attack on Thomas.W's page,[2] but... I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but calling that a good faith edit is surely overdoing it? Bishonen | talk 18:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC).

True - I used Twinkle rollback so I could leave an edit summary. I forgot that it classifies the edit as good faith. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. Twinkle is very useful, but sometimes it talks too much. Bishonen | talk 09:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC).

Orphaned non-free image File:Biggles adventures in time.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Biggles adventures in time.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The Godfather[edit]

The Godfather I do get a little description understood however I was wondering if all of the changes I need to be removed ?

I feel there were key points of the plot that were left out of the summary

Thanks. Wescandela (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there.
Possibly, but there was just waaaaay too much there. Best to start a topic over at the talk page Talk:The Godfather if you think important plot devices are missing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Further Xtools stuff[edit]

Hello CR. Since our last posts on the help desk I've come across a few items regarding this. First is a new message that you might have seen near the top of your watchlist page that mentions the need of editors to maintain the counter. It also has a link that leads here Wikipedia talk:XTools. There is a newish thread here Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#revision history statistics .22link.22 that has an explanation of the problem that I had not read before. It makes sense to me now. Also Diannaa left this link to a tool that can get revision history stats. I know that you might already be aware of this but I thought I'd leave this note just in case. Have a pleasant week. MarnetteD|Talk 20:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops forgot to leave this link Wikipedia:Help desk#X.21.27s Tools This way you won't have to search for it to refresh your memory. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Doniago's notability challenges to Star Trek episodes[edit]

I just thanked you for your reverting Doniago's notability challenge to Cause and Effect (Star Trek: The Next Generation). I'm posting here to note he has also raised a similar notability challenge to Time's Arrow (Star Trek: The Next Generation) -- a two-parter whose challenge is especially questionable -- as well as TOS episode The Tholian Web. I suggest you back me up on these two also, as we clearly agree on the proper course of action but you probably have more experience than I do; I'm also inherently slow in responding to messages (for some reason I can't login or post edits via Chrome -- only IE or mobile). --RBBrittain (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. You put me in an awkward situation, albeit unintentionally - and possibly yourself as well - as stating "I suggest you back me up on these two also" could possibly be viewed as either canvassing, or possibly forum shopping - but I have to say that would be very poor faith, so don't sweat it. I'm just playing Devil's advocate there.
I'm not an expert on Star Trek, I just happen to like that particular episode, so I don't feel I could comment with authority on either. However, I would suggest you approach Doniago in the same manner I did - whilst I agree that notability is a given, neither episode has any references at all - at least Cause & Effect has a couple of sources! Perhaps suggest via talk page that the {{Refimprove|date=July 2015}} might be a better path to take? He seemed amenable to that with regard to C&E - especially if you manage to pull up a couple of references at the same time? Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


Hello again CR. Regarding the thread Talk:Licence to Kill#Questionable word. I wanted to let you know that this person has been going on about this stuff for months. Several of us have been tracking them and have noted the unhealthy nature of their obsession. This articles edit history and talk page history will show the extent of the problem. Ponyo is aware of the situation as you can see at this thread User talk:Ponyo#Problem is back. If you see their posts again please feel free to remove them and report them to Ponyo. I would have removed the thread at the LtK talk page but as you posted to it twice I haven't done so. IMO it is better to remove the items so that they don't have a forum for this. If you feel differently that is fine - I will leave it up to you. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 21:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. I wasn't aware of the scale of the problem - I've only seen it on the Licence to Kill page, and recently on Lois Lane when I checked the "new" IP's edit history. Given the above you're right - if he returns to LTK, under any guise, I'll remove and report. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


Hello. How is D0g "anthropomorphic"? Are you sure this is what you meant? Mezigue (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Possibly not - what I mean is that despite the name being "Dog", the creature is not a dog and moves in an upright fashion, on hind legs. The implication was that although it may be doglike in behaviour, it is not in appearance or movement. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)