User talk:Chaheel Riens

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

Multiplication table[edit]

I just removed the svg.

And I put it back. You have yet to prove, or show any good reason why it should be removed. Please continue any discussion at the correct place - the article talk page here, thanks.
You should also be aware that your actions could be seen as editwarring - you already have a warning to alert you to this on your talk page. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Nasty Gal[edit]

Hello Chaheel, just saw your message. Please let me know what kind of links are appropriate for the page?

Hi there,
A link to the relevant policy is included in the message, but you may have missed it if you're new to Wikipedia. Here it is again - Wikipedia:External links. Also on that page is a "nutshell", which states "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. See Links normally to be avoided."
In this case both links are about fashion trends that barely mention Nasty Gal - in short the articles are about fashion in general, not specifically Nasty Gal.
In all honesty the link above it for HypeBeast is not much better, but at least it focuses on just Nasty Gal and the founder Sophia Amoruso. Due to the poor content, I've half a mind to take it out as well - but at least it meets initial inclusion criteria of relevance. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Road rage[edit]

Do you think this one is better? The one was rather blurry, but I thought it fit in the article better. The problem is, it would be hard to get a good illustration of this unless someone is deliberately being a troll on the road and taping it, and I'm not willing to do that. Impatient Behind The Wheel (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope, sorry - there's no context to the image to suggest that its inclusion will improve or illustrate the article subject. Where is the rage? This may be a situation where no suitable image is available or needed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The rage was on my part as a driver because I was mean to them, the images are to illustrate the reaction (them turning around and giving me a dirty look). For that matter, the images of traffic congestion don't illustrate any rage. Impatient Behind The Wheel (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
No, but they illustrate a cause of road rage as the captions explain and as is supported multiple times in the article. If it's hard to get a good image, don't use any. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Right, and obviously I'm not going to drive up to them and say "hey, I didn't get a good enough picture last time, can you act like I'm being mean to you again so I can get a better one?" :) Although there probably are some kids that would gleefully jump at the opportunity to be featured in a Wikipedia article without triggering Cluebot. Impatient Behind The Wheel (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well then, my previous point is valid - If it's hard to get a good image, don't use any. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hardwar interplay jewel.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hardwar interplay jewel.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) 18:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

“wife beater” edit[edit]

That nickname is literally “wife beater”. That is not a mere connotation BlackAdvisor (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I can read - I know that "wife beater" is literally "wife beater" - but that doesn't change the usage as a common descriptor for a type of clothing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Mondial reversion[edit]

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.

I saw recently that you removed a competitor comparison section on a the Mondial site due to the reason "excessive" content. Looking at Wikipedia policies, on what qualifies as 'excessive' to remove from an article is an article needs to exceed 10,000 words.

The article is still below the 10,000 word threshold for 'excessive length' as another user pointed out. Wikipedia:Article size for "information saturation"

A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes (information about a given page's size can be viewed by visiting the page and then clicking on the "Page information" link in the left column).


Other reasons to remove content: Wikipedia:Content removal

The 6 reasons are: 1) Unsourced information: (was anything in the tables unsourced?) 2) Inaccurate information: (was there anything in the stats that did you reflect accurately the sources from reason #1 above?) 3) Information moved to another article (is there another article where it should be moved too?) 4) Irrelevant information (The articles themselves that have the car reviews include competitor comparisons) - this in itself should be self evidential on the contextual applicability?. 5) Inappropriate content

  a) Original research - all the data in the tables was from mainstream publications
  b) Personal view - all the stats are objective data points, not personal opinion
  c) Promotion - I see no marketing or attempt to sell a product in the data tables
  d) Attempt to attack/disparage - I see no subjective data points or an attempt to negatively paint other subjects
  e) How to instructions - none
  f) Vandalism - n/a
  g) spam - I see no attempt to sell an item
  i) copyright violations - all link to public webpages on the web

6) Author's own addition - did you add these tables and now wish to remove them?

I look forward to hearing further context on why you feel this violates Wikipedia's policies?

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcallpurell (talkcontribs) 19:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"Huge section composed entirely of WP:FANCRUFT. Also WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and WP:NOTCATALOGUE" - to quote.
Additionally, Wikipedia:Content removal is not one of "Wikipedia's policies", but rather is an essay, and while I admit that WP:FANCRUFT is also an essay - WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and WP:NOTCATALOGUE are policy. Finally, under Wikipedia:Article size you might want to read the section Lists, tables and summaries, and that little bit right at the end: "Too much statistical data is against policy". Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Look at the examples of "too much statistical data"

1) Summary only descriptions of creative works (n/a) in this case 2) Lyrics Databases (n/a) in this case 3) *Statistics that lack context or explanation* If those stats lack context, why are they included reviews of the Mondial include them? 4) Logs of software updates (n/a) in this case

so it applies to #3 - the argument is not length, nor funcraft (see below) - comparative stats are definitely within context. - and have full explanations.


By your own referrals: Funcraft: (again according to the page itself)

poorly written (they are tables, n/a)
unwikified (all point to other wiki entries of cars)
non-neutral (all sourced to mainstream articles)
not referenced (see above)

or contain original research (see above)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information The samples cited are:


Wikipedia is not a directory

Examples given:

1) List of loosely assocaited topics? (n/a) 2) Genelogical netires (n/a) 3) White/Yellow pages (n/a 4) Directory (n/a) 5) Sales catalog (n/a) 6) Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization (the comparable stats) - no cross linking 7) simple listings (i.e. part list) - again, not applicable.

Looking at previous history, I too am beginning to suspect you have an ulterior motive sir. What is your desire to censor data? Was there a comparison test that you found offensive to your personal view? If so - correct the source, do not try to falsely use Wikipedia policy to censor contextual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcallpurell (talkcontribs) 21:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Those examples are inclusive, not exclusive. It appeals to such a niche market that it fails to improve the article. Your final statement is funny. Firstly you are aware that the material is being removed, not censored? It's all still there in the history. A small point, but a valid one nevertheless. If it wasn't such a blatantly ridiculous statement, and one that cannot have been made seriously I'd almost consider it a personal insult. And, I might add you lessen the strength of your argument by the unfortunate typo of "funcraft" rather than "fancruft" - something else that made me smile. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2018 (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.

Mondial sock puppets?[edit]

user:Paulchua just re added the comparative stats, it seems incredibly unlikely that a brand new uninvoved user would make this their first edit.

it looks like user:Changomo and user:Marcallpurell have also involved themselves, and behaviorally look very much like they are controlled by one person, with the accounts mostly editing on the Mondial page and leaving talk page comments making basically the same arguments on our talk pages within a few hours of each other. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Correct, I've re-added it. I've been following the page for a long time - noticed that a lot of changes I think I have a pretty good idea who the other folks are though, that said - I don't believe comparable stats are a harmful or excessive element. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulchua (talkcontribs) 07:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Zombie Apocalypse[edit]

I find I am unable to edit references as there is nothing in the edit box to edit. Can you change the link for reference 63 from the dead link to http://web.archive.org/web/20110201180242/http://tdwpslays.com/

Thank you. DannyMasonKeener (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but I'll give you another choice - would you like me to update it, or would you like me to tell you how to do it so you can try it out, and know for the future? I'm good with either option. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Never mind - I've updated it anyway. You were probably clicking on the actual "references" section and trying to edit that. References aren't held there, but in the article itself. If you click on this link you can see what I did. Chaheel Riens (talk) 05:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

RE[edit]

  1. Reverting vandalism or "test edit". If you can't understand or, then I will delete vandalism or in the future.
  2. uw-delete2 does not use for vandalism warn. uw-delete3 use for vandalism warn.
  3. Finally, I hope you understand that uw-delete2 has no meaning for that IP. It has been a long time.I care because you deleted my message.--O1lI0 (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenwich%2C_Connecticut&type=revision&diff=825157070&oldid=824583066

Sorry, but I don't understand the above - it makes no sense at all, much like your edits I'm questioning. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
As long as you don't let me feel harassed, you can waste your time on what you want to do. You have spent a day in me and my rest time has been wasted by you.I feel that there should be problems with our communication, but if I continue to spend time on this, even my own work time will be delayed.I'm sorry I want to interrupt the topic and it doesn't make sense.O1lI0 (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Is English not your first language? It's hard to make out your meaning sometimes. If you don't want to feel harassed (bear in mind that just because you feel you are being harassed, does not mean you are being harassed) don't make edits that warrant closer scrutiny, and certainly don't reinstate them when they have been questioned. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

ASOS Digital Marketing[edit]

Hi there, was just wondering the reason why you deleted my article so i can make improvements and re-upload it. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megv1596 (talkcontribs) 19:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Because it's not very good. And it's not your article either. Please continue this discussion over at the Asos Talk page, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Netflix[edit]

I added into this section because I saw that the article on Netflix had a 'sales and marketing section' but it did not mention anything about the actual marketing of Netflix itself. I have read your comment to another user and I have updated what I originally wrote on the page. However, your comment about no relevance to Netflix I feel is unjust because it had a section on Netflix marketing thus i added a digital marketing paragraph Roshanne96 (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but don't let a desire for good marks in academia get in the way of contributing to the encyclopedia. The section you have expanded upon is excessive and lecturing in style and tone - it seeks to instruct the reader in the methods and usage of online media rather than to report on what is a small section of the article. I've removed it again. Please read up on WP:BRD before adding anything back to the article. It is sufficient in an article about Netflix to simply say that they use online media - and to say what that media is. Anything more than that is excessive. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Uniforms[edit]

Fine there are many ways forward which I will attach to the article -but to start with lets be clear about what WP is about. I provide content, you do an excellent job keeping order. To me edit summaries were expanded to assist- let see how we can use this new tool. To me they are an excellent way to read about previous debates and understand the pitfall of a particular direction of editing- it has a wider readership than a talk page and every contribution has one so one can understand the dynamics of the articles creation. Here I am flagging up there is a difference between colloquial use, and technical use and that the detailed work should go elsewhere. When training highly -qualified newbies, I emphasise the importance of the three parts to a WP edit. First write the fact, then write the source, and then say in the edit summary what you have done. Now press Publish changes. Talk pages come later.

Talk pages are the only way to go to establish concensus- but for matters of law and fact they are as much help as the referendum. I announced the revision I made WP:BRD is where we would go now, but there is a little flexibility in the 3 revert rule, which I normally argue against, you are given two bites at the cherry. I spoke on the talk page in January oldid=821794838, it may have been better for you to have gone there, and discussed this definition issue first when I signalled the error. We can take the detailed discussion to Talk:School uniform and really I would like other editors to get involved.

The good side of this debate is it gives me a little more backing to do WP:BOLD on school uniform , do you fancy joning in?--ClemRutter (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Your Help Desk question[edit]

You asked for help with Criticism of Facebook, but there were no responses. Did you get what you wanted? I wouldn't know how to help you, but maybe you could try again.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Images and BLP[edit]

You bring up a very interesting point, but the problem here is that by claiming it's being removed as a BLP concern you're opening up the thin end of the wedge to open the doors for BLP to be used to remove *any* image [1]

I've not paid much intention to inclusion criteria for images in a BLP context. If you are aware of any general consensus or discussions that even look like they might lead to some large consensus, I'd be interested. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any consensus or opinion - my concern is that this may be the start of such a movement. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll certainly keep an eye open for such a movement. Thanks for bringing it up. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

A lukewarm cookie for you![edit]

You re-added the grammatical changes that I didn't see, thank you!

I apologize for not seeing that. I only saw the first half of their edit and undid it. Thanks for putting those nice grammatical changes back! :) StaringAtTheStars (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Steakburger[edit]

Please take a look at Talk:Steak burger. I cannot find a single source that gives a clear definition of "steakburger" that distinguishes it from "hamburger". Can you? --Macrakis (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Answered at talk page. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Siemens Electric Airplane Crash (and the israelis)[edit]

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.

Thank you for your message but you seem to have not read the stuxnet article literately, as it clearly indicates stuxnet was specifically oriented towards SIEMENS CONTROLLER BUS (SCADA) as it`s priority target. Indeed it seems whomever wrote the stuxnet code was obsessed, not I. Good Day126.161.148.209 (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I read the source you provided "literately" and there is no mention of Stuxnet having anything to do with the crash. To assume that it did is either Original research or synthesis - neither of which are valid reasons for inclusion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is a currently ongoing investigation, and facts shall be emerging throughout. Please be less "hasty" with your seemingly obsessive reverts of contributions, as that is seen as deconstructive rather than helping to build the encyclopedia, fullstop.

When facts emerge - and are reliably sourced - then you can add them, not before. To add them before is (as I pointed out above) nothing more than speculation and although you may intend to help build the encyclopedia - that's not what you are actually doing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2018 (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.

First grade[edit]

Why delete my added content about grade one in Japan? I’ve been teaching 1st grade in Japan and the minor content I added was accurate Supergenki (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Because, as can be seen from my reversion here, Asia/Japan was subsequently included in the article twice, and you removed a valid hatnote. This edit is acceptable and a good addition. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Power G[edit]

Hi Chaheel,i hope you got a fantastic day.This cart is just to say that sorry if you feel angry for my "editing warring",im just trying to help Wikipedia and the information that i put always its analized.Please don't think that i just put something without sense.All the things that i put were erased and i get blocked for the user:Ed Johnston for this stupid reason.But if you want to keep the incorrect information its ok,obviously there many people in Wikipedia and each one have a different opinion.I try to put the real information. Thank you for read this and for your time,Power G

Appreciate the comment, but not the content. The information in the article is sourced, as opposed to your additions. If you can provide references and reliable sources to corroborate your intepretation of musical genre, then we can discuss.
Until then the current genres are correct - or at least sourced, which is essentially the same thing - and yours are not.
You have a welcome template on your talk page, please read it to avoid running afoul of the same type of blocks as you've already been hit with. I note that you've started genre-warring as soon as your block expired, as seen by this edit here where you have again changed a genre without source. I'd advise you to stop. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Good afternoon Chaheel
I was wondering how to prove that my genres are correct i hope you could explain me
Thank you,Power G
Power G (original) (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Find sources. Find reliable mainstream media that states the Rumours album meets your criteria. The current genres are "soft rock" and "pop rock" - these claims are supported in the article by The Daily Telegraph and Irish Times sources which state unambiguously; "almost faultless, glossy soft-rock sound" and "'Rumours' – pop-rock perfection"
Also bear in mind that even if you do find such sources that doesn't allow you to make the changes unilaterally. Due to the contested nature of these edits, once you've found sources bring them up on the talk page and allow for discussion and consensus prior to any change. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Steak burger[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing—Steak burger—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Macrakis (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

G'day[edit]

G'day Chaheel Riens. I just wanted to bring your attention to WP:BLPSTYLE with regard to Billy Mitchell (video game player). Using the word "disgraced" doesn't meet the requirement for BLPs to be written in a dispassionate tone and style. I haven't protected the article, but I will if any further edit-warring goes on there. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see where I've contravened any BLP issues - please point this out to me? The term "disgraced" is used in multiple reliable sources, and used as an accurate description of the situation and his position. To say that it has negative connotations is accurate but also necessary - the circumstances of him becoming a "former competitive gamer" are indeed negative:
  • Disgraced Donkey Kong champ Billy Mitchell releases statement [2]
  • Disgraced Donkey Kong Champ Billy Mitchell’s Redemption Is a Sloppy Soliloquy[3]
  • Dethroned ‘King of Kong’ Promises Evidence He Didn’t Cheat[4]
  • Who shot Billy Mitchell? – Reader’s Feature[5]
  • Billy Mitchell says he’s “not going to stop now” after scoreboard ban (Disgraced score-chaser promises witnesses, documents will redeem his name)[6]
  • Billy Mitchell, disgraced 'Donkey Kong' champ, defends disqualified video game scores[7]
  • Disgraced Billy Mitchell makes statement after being stripped of arcade records[8]
  • Disgraced Donkey Kong Master Says He's Got Proof He Didn't Cheat[9]
  • Billy Mitchell vows to clear his name after being found guilty of cheating[10]
Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

about Latinpac1[edit]

Hey thanks for reverting it. He’s not getting the fact that he has to provide a source. Can I ask you something he sent me two emails over the page and saying that he’ll have me banned and stuff like that I had to block him from sending me emails how do I send them to Wikipedia. Thanks and regards A.R.M. 15:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Also I reported him so if you are going to I already did it A.R.M. 15:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest taking him to AN/I and asking for advice there. I see you're reported him to AR/V but that's only for content - if you think there's a conduct issue, AN/I is the place to go. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: ClueBot NG has him reported too. So with that I’ll see thanks for helping A.R.M. 15:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I still have the email want me to upload them and send them to you A.R.M. 15:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not the right person - I've raised it at AN/I. I'd pop over there and introduce yourself - the Admin's there may want to see them when deciding on what course of action to take. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)