I cited my revisions, including 1 reference to the novel. What is wrong with them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angryirishpunk (talk • contribs) 17:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So... you took my edits down because they were uncited, and when I cited (and shortened) them, they came down for 'excessive detail'.

I apologise if they were too verbose, but as they were relevant, correctly cited and factually correct, I don't understand the repeated attempts by several users to remove them.

Angryirishpunk (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I found a video showing that Piper is a girl. Here is the linkHere is Piper I'll change it, if you don't want me to leave me a message and i change it so you don't have to :) --70.176.200.96 (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've watched the vid three times - I can't see where it confirms Piper's Gender? a_man_alone (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't but her voice is a girls.

Not conclusive - see Nermal for an example, and also Chuggington talk where I mentioned this last time. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the talk page of Chuggington and mabye we should put something that says He/She or mabye we can say it the engine. For example Piper is a small oil fired 4-2-0 steam locomotive trainee in Piper's first episode Old Puffer Pete says that Piper runs on vegetable oil. Let me know what you think :) --70.176.200.96 (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there again. Having had my post night duty chill out session, please accept my genuine apology in regards to this whole mess of an argument. I don't normally go off on such a rampage and did not mean to attack you in any way nor did I want to accuse you of any other sort of underhand activity. I just feel very passionately about the page in question (as I am sure you do also) and maintaining a high quality of not only data admission but in aesthetic presentation. My main issue was what I stated about you judging the picture, rather than you judging the person (which I know you were not doing) and with that I can understand your reversion and then diversion to the discussion page. I just try to do best by the page in general and my main issue was with the pic that was up previously hence my changing and adding to the discussion page, it then turned into that whole ridiculous revertion war. In future I will try to gain the opinion of everyone but as I said on her actual page the amount of decent images suitable for an infobox are slight at best. Anyway again I am sorry for being blunt, defensive and jumping to conclusions in regards to the whole judgemental gig! I hope that in future if our editing paths cross again they can be a bit more constructive and I promise I will not bite. BrotherDarksoul (talk) 09:03, 08 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there.

Funny you should post this - I've mellowed out somewhat as well, and was wondering how to draw this to a suitable conclusion. I think the problem was that we both had the best interests at heart, but different ways to implement them - an unfortunately common occurance here on Wikipedia, and I'm glad that we have been able to reach common ground - again something that unfortunately doesn't always happen. Who knows, maybe with collaboration we can get Kelly Clarkson to FA article... Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, indeed! BrotherDarksoul (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude, don't wanna annoy you or anything just asking about the whole Kelly Clarkson spinto thing. I added that link and her whole voice (spinto soprano) range thing (one of my proudest Kelly moments) but felt under pressure to remove the Spinto part! Due to it being a more operatic gig! I guess what I am saying is if you are happy for that descriptor to stay then so am I, simply as I believe she has all the qualities of a spinto!. Shall we make a pact to make sure that it stays in the article? I removed it after I added the soprano data but I done it against my better judgement/wishes! Anyway just wanted to check that out with ya! Hope all is well either way BrotherDarksoul (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what style of music a spinto soprano sings - what's important is the vocal range, which is what the topic is about. While it may be true that spinto's seem to be more operatic - the spinto page suggests that - it still seems (as a vocal range, if not style of music) to apply to Kelly, or at least it does by one reliable source.

The fact that the second source doesn't directly identify her as a spinto doesn't mean she isn't - as a spinto is a subset of the soprano, so she can still be a spinto even if the other article simply defines her range as "soprano".

We don't need to have a pact on this - it's reliably sourced, so has every right to stay.

I don't mean to be nosy or picky here, but you're much more reticent that you were before - remember how we first crossed swords - Bold Revert Discuss. The bold part still applies! Do it! If somebody disagrees - find out why, which is the discuss part. If you think something is better one way, try it. People may agree with you. A quick look through my own history shows a huge number of such incidents - many of which I lose, but I still have the credo of BRD. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, you confirmed what I thought. The whole pact thing was just incase we had the whole revert thing going on! But I totally think she is a spinto (the force and slice in her higher register in particular states clearly so) and exactly she has a soprano range anyway! My confindence is a little knocked at the moment (my sleep deprived self is on here too much rather than my clear minded self - therefor making my decision making skills questionable at best) I guess the reticent part is just as I was ashamed of how we crossed swords, I dont normally go off like that and I found it shameful :/ Anyway thanks and I shall take your advice on board (without losing it with others though lol) BrotherDarksoul (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Don't worry, I was adding the info to the games in order to get a continuum, and was going to go back in fill in any gaps with sources (charts were published in the Daily Mirror, C+VG and YS). Elite and the others have been fixed now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.39.200 (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent change has been reverted for the following reason, while Oakley Court itself, in reality can be debated to whether it is a castle or a simple estate/mansion...the plot of the film and it's characters refer to it as a "castle". It is a part of the Rocky Horror genre.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Anim-jswilly.gif. 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. Skier Dude (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you were able to interpret my fiery attitude, why didn't you revert my edit???Low hangin' pants (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hey again, remember last time I was talking to you about Piper's gender I found another website that clearly states Piper's gender (not a boy) Here it is Piper (click watch a clip and if the video diesn't start click on it and it will show the play and pause) (In the second part Decka says look at little Piper, isn't (SHE) Deckalightful). It is the UK version by the way (just in case you get the US) (US states Piper's gender too so US Piper isn't a boy). --70.176.200.96 (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a nice thing to say! You made my day! With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologese. A lot of people misunderstand what a lead is for so I tend to revert without giving it much thought, but in this case I was being too trigger-happy. Gran² 10:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chaheel Riens. This article somehow ended up on my watchlist, and I've noticed what's going on. While you're correct to remove unsourced information, and arguably your reverts are exempt from the edit warring policy because of BLP concerns, you're probably fighting a losing battle. Why not request semiprotection for the article? It would almost certainly be granted, and it works well in situations like this where different IPs are at issue. Rivertorch (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. I had hoped that simple reversion of unsourced material (under BLP - as you point out, althoguh I guess I shoudl have clarified that as well myself,) would give the editors a clue, as this is not blatant vandalism - but perhaps not. I'll pop along to RPP presently. Cheers for the sanity check. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like that Chaheel! Please see my posting on Talk:The Godfather Cheers, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am French, reading the English page for Nicolas Gaume. The sources on this page are wrong : if you read the linked pages in French, those sources do not confirm what is stated on the English version of the page Nicolas Gaume. I just saw that you canceled the changes that eliminated these passages supposedly sourced. I think it is a mistake. I'll make the changes again. We can discuss about that if you wish. Coccico2345 (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there.

The problem with your edits was that you removed sourced content without explaining why. If you had explained the above in the edit summary, I wouldn't have reverted. I don't speak French, so cannot verify the source myself - however now that you've explained why the material was removed, I'm fine with that. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? see this. --Kasper2006 (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that important, but I just want to point out that Marie's place is basically a cafe with scooters for hire. No surfboard in sight. Also, she's used Jason's red bank bag as a hanging flower pot (just above Marie's cash register). You can see it on the right side when she turns to face Jason in the cafe. I watched the film yesterday. :D FWIW, anyway. 0zero9nine (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chaheel Riens. You have new messages at Talk:Pippa_Middleton#Reverted.
You can at any time.

I have added a note to that effect on the Discussion page, and added the article to My watchlist so will add support when required. Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chaheel Riens. You have new messages at Talk:Pippa_Middleton#Reverted.
You can at any time.

Please see Talk:Down syndrome#Shouldn't the common name "Mogolism" be mentionned? and reply. Thanks, --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to put a damper on your success, but I think I know more about Harry Potter than you do. I've read the Sorcerer's Stone 12 times. And no I'm not bluffing. The Chamber of Secrets 8 times. The Prisoner of Azkaban 15 times, (and I'm currently rereading it). The Goblet of Fire 10 times. The Order of the Phoenix 11 times. The Half-Blood Prince 9 times. And the Deathly Hallows 7 times. I've also watched all the movies. And I also have an account on Pottermore. And I also have a letter from J.K. Rowling (not bluffing). Plus I'm new at this, so give me a break. Now I'm not an unreasonable person, I admit I misspelled mokeskin, and I'll read the summaries.

Pheonixfeather89 (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC) HarryPotter Fan[reply]

Hi there.

Calm down. Let's get the unpleasantness out of the way first:

• Your claimed credentials count for naught here on Wikipedia. Mainly because they are unproveable, but also because the only thing that matters here are the quality of your edits - which at the moment are average. Note that I don't say your edits are bad, poor, or vandalism, just average. They have not improved the articles, and in several cases, they lowered the quality - albeit unintentionally. I fully expect that to change once you get to understand how things work around here.
• Do not assume that quantity trumps quality - I've read each book twice - perhaps once for a couple - but that in no way means that you know more about the HP universe than I do. Maybe you do, but your edits so far don't uphold that claim.

Now, the better stuff: If you've read the books as often as you say, then I don't doubt that you'll soon start to make positive contributions around the HP articles. I know you're new, which is why I left a message on your talk page, instead of slapping you with a template. I've now updated your page with a welcome template - it includes some helpful links that will ease you into the way of things here. Best of luck, and welcome. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Emu running emu.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been removing content from the introduction of List of Cars characters and have taken the issue here: Talk:List of Cars characters#intro. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, going through the long history of the image, I see where your sarcasm is coming from. No, I don't have any objection to the article opening with a photo showing people with Down syndrome are, well, people with a disorder. My other two objections remain; they are based on the general principle of the thing, not this specific case. Also, I will avoid posting here; the discussion should be on the article's talk page. Churn and change (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As someone with a passing interest in the downs article - can I invite you to peer review it at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Down_syndrome/archive2 - I quite understand if it's not in your interest group at the moment :) Cheers, Fayedizard (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, seeing that public opinion is so strong, that we should briefly make reference to his believed homosexuality on the webpage. Whether or not they are based in truth, society considers such gossip to be correct. Surely this is worthy of mentioning. 144.124.24.57 (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is whether it can be verified and can it be done so by reliable sources. You have yet to provide any of these, ergo it cannot be added. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have provided plenty of sites where the strong public opinion is expressed. Surely since there is such a strong belief we can include a single reference to it. 144.124.24.57 (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Not at all. Strong belief in rumours has no place in an encyclopedia. If you believe it does, this isn't the right place for you. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my intentions are being misunderstood. I am simply trying to enrich articles on the website rather than damage it as others seem to. What evidence would you require before it could be put up on the article? http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/344911 This is one of many pages which demonstrate the public outcry associated with him. 144.124.24.57 (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read our policy on reliable sources. Please read our policy on biographies of living people. Then consider how important it really is to include tabloid tattle and forum gossip in an article in an encyclopedia. If by "enrich", you mean to include rumour, I think you'r every much mistaken on the purpose of this project. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you can understand that I am acting in good faith. 144.124.24.57 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you think you are, but gossip and conjecture are not welcome in an encyclopaedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually censoring the article by not including a rumour about his gender identity. If I was out to cause trouble, surely I would include this as well? 144.124.24.57 (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about what your agenda is, but as I noted above, please familiarise yourself with how we best source claims for biographies of living people. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heard this rumour as well. Think it should be included in the page as well. --Rastadon1987 (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also heard this rumour - but only from you two pointing it out. What I have not done is heard or seen any reliable sources that confirm it. The latter is what defines whether information can be included, not the former.

Have either of you actually read the guidelines on BLP additions yet? Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well people once thought the world was flat, which we have an article on, regardless of the truth within it. Something the whole Western world believes to be truth is worth a brief mention. --144.124.24.57 (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for Heaven's sake. Read the our policy on biographies of living people. The flat earth page of which you probably speak is an excellent example of how wrong you are, as that page contains no less than 149 reliable sources - 149 more than you have managed to come up with for your own agenda. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's this agenda you seem to think I have? --144.124.24.57 (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Artificial-insemination/Pages/Introduction.aspx