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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 you...do your worst. I have plenty of legitimate reasons for suspicion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talk • contribs) 16:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 me^{Stalk me} 14:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 me^{Stalk me} 14:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 me^{Stalk me} 16:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 65.188.162.204 (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you still remember that article. I has just been promoted to be a GA. I thought you would like to know. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah. Twinkle is very useful, but sometimes it talks too much. Bishonen | talk 09:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Do you suppose bipedal would be a better term? Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's more ape-like if anything, because he can stand on two legs and throw things but he actually runs on all four. However you would need a citation one way or the other. Mezigue (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do see the currently ongoing discussion at Talk:Mons_pubis. There is a great degree of vandalism on these articles so I may have used the revert button once instead of the undo with an edit summary. Please feel free to join in the discussion. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been part of the discussion over the image and proposed changes since June 2011. It never ends - the only constant being a failure to provide a better iamge that illustrates the Mons Pubis, which is what the article is all about. Double posted to the actual page. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[3] The clarification request was about my phrasing and not about the name of Edge's engine. I had already addressed the reviewer's concerns, who passed the article at GA well before your suggested addition of "Worldmaker". Please revert your edit. – czar 18:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. The current version is no different to the queried version with regard to the query. You have not made any changes to clarify the question asked by Ritchie, which was "Edge branded their version of Filmation" - what does this mean

Additionally, improvement to an article does not stop just because it has made it to Good Article. Claims (or implication) that an article needs no changing just because it's a GA are - at best - borderline WP:OWN, and at worst plain dumb. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased the sentence, which he found acceptable, so at the very least Ritchie's confusion should not be the rationale for your edit. I contemplated not even adding that sentence in the first place—I don't think it's particularly important. As for the rest of your accusations, we're working on BRD: you made a bold edit, I disagreed, and we discuss it. We don't default to its inclusion. The only reason I mentioned the GA review is because you invoked it in your edit summary as the reason for your change. – czar 07:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please refer to link and accept it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.97.242.126 (talk) 06:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chaheel, you need to talk to Black Dragon. That user is not listening and treating the talk page like a forum for him opinions. He has already been told by me and other editors that he's wrong and why and he refuses to listen or get the message and move on. That's why I'm reverting his last comment. The matter isn't up for discussion because he is in violation of WP:OR and won't admit it. Thanks for your look in. 121.220.23.33 (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh forgot to mention - WP:3RR only applies within 24 hours. I have not reverted more than twice let alone three times within such a time period. 121.220.23.33 (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have history with Black Dragon - you have my sympathy that you're having to deal with him as well. However, Edit-warring is not restricted to edits within 24 hours. Edits within 24hours form part of the bright line, and are dealt with harshly, but a sequence of edits over a more protracted time period are also considered edit-warring if all they do is flip-flop between versions. Indeed on occasion if an editor is thought to be specifically waiting for the 24 hour statute to expire before editing, that is viewed in an even more dim light.

WWE is not my area of expertise (if indeed anything is!) so I can't comment on this issue - apart from to warn you that to an outsider you may appear to be edit-warring, and I'd hate to see you blocked over an issue in which you may be right. Edit-warring doesn't care who's right - only that it's happening in the first place. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you blame me..... I already posting a warning on the IPs page.... of course he reverts my edits and then goes on to leave me a warning.......

Even though he has only been on here for like 4 days he thinks he owns the page. I provided new sources, from official sites .....(WWE.com) however he keeps wanting to revert my edits thinking he owns the talk page.

And here I was trying to be civil...... You cant take history into account that the IP is clearly wrong, even if you didnt like me BlackDragon 14:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I warned both of you. You are both editwarring, and if you read above I refute the IP's claim that they are not and warn them again that they're potentially warring.

Now, please AGF with regard to the editor and their history. That particular IP address has only been active for 4 days, but that in no way means that the editor is a newbie. It could be a dynamic IP, and they may have been here for longer than you and made more edits than you - despite you still claiming falsely that you have made 16,000 edits, you've only just topped 4,000 - not counting those made while you block-evaded of course. By its very nature a dynamic IP address may only appear to be active for a short period of time - that's no indication of length of service, nor is an IP editor required to indicate how long they have been here for. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a very strong hatred towards me for some reason. Is that what Im feeling.

And we are not discussing this edit count thing again. I am free to count edits however I want

I dont even care anymore. If you guys want to let the WWE page be wrong and not even open the sources I provide then whatever BlackDragon 20:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My last word - the WWE page is right. To Chaheel, my sole reason for alerting you was 3RR and I was addressing that and that alone. Edit warring, fair enough, but I defend myself by stating that I was removing material that was in violation of WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:CIVIL. Persistence would amount to disruptive editing and possible vandalism which does have some protections in removal. That is why I believe I was in the right to remove the material. In fact, I would like the whole section removed but I felt that would be going too far and it should actually be done by a third party. That's all I have to say. 121.220.23.33 (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've made 4000 edits, as can be seen here - yet you claim to have made 16,000 and insist that your claim is correct. When faced with such disregard for accuracy and authenticity, it's no wonder that we don't see eye-to-eye.

However, staying germaine to this issue, all I've done is point out to both of you that you're edit warring. How you wish to react to that is entirely up to you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said we are NOT discussing edit counts dude....

Again, technically yes, but he has no right to revert my edit. Even when I left a new message, completely different from the first, he reverted it...... again. I dont even care anymore. He has already gotten 5 warnings from various people. Clearly he isnt responsible and doesnt know anything about how this works

Again to the IP, he is not an admin and there is no point in blanking the section when I provided Official sources, and it was fine until you started blanking the page nonstop BlackDragon 00:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]