User talk:Flix11: Difference between revisions

• Flix11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - pie - global contribs

Archives

2011–16 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020

I noticed that a message you recently left to Mulaneys may have been unduly harsh. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see others making a common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It takes more time, but it helps us retain new editors. Thank you. TheWinRatHere! 16:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this happens again, I'll take it upon myself to report you at AN/I, Flix11. Cut it out. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the user is now blocked for apparent vandalism, did I get exonerated? – Flix11 (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's a matter of principle: Don't bite the newcomers. Robby.is.on (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Nasdem Party with slogan.png. 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) 23:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no clue what you're talking about. Someone else edited the page to get rid of things and replace them with names like Justin Bieber or some troll name, and I changed it back. I just edited the page so it would change back. I always make sure to wait until after a game (like it says to) before editing the page. I hope that we can sort out this confusion.--Egfdagger (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bung, bisa nggak Anda cari & kasih koordinat Cinnamon Grand Hotel & The Tropical Inn Hotel buat gambar "Location of bombings in Colombo" pada artikel 2019 Sri Lanka bombings, kayak yang Anda lakukan buat koordinat Wonocolo pada artikel Surabaya bombings --Glorious Engine (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what I did wrong on this message. I only changed this so it was the right information for the article. I think it is harsh to leave a message like that!

82.16.140.101 (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2019 (BST)

I have moved this article to draftspace as it is unsourced

I'm not sure why you changed the dates as they are all used in the same style for the article per MOS:DATEUNIFY. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DannyS712 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

While this will likely be notable, it is probably too soon for this article to be fully written, given that the match hasn't happened yet and thus lacks much significant coverage.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2019 Johan Cruyff Shield and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2019 Johan Cruyff Shield, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DannyS712 (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Flix11! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DannyS712 (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You, before adding new kits, have to see official website. The new home kit of Juventus was relieved only yesterday. So, the kit must be fixed now, specially on t-shirt. The scudetto patch is on left, over adidas logo, not in the center of the t-shirt.--87.10.100.152 (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See it first before commenting. The socks you add are wrong, they do not have the pink lines in the middle. – Flix11 (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now is correct. Before the scudetto patch was in the middle, but you fixed it. P.S. I'm not a vandal.--87.10.100.152 (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the start of the season, during December, before the Asian Cup, all the stats.the-afc.com reports for the AFC competition (AFC Cup & AFC Champions League) had the match referees mentioned in the report, though just before the commencement of the tournament, AFC hid the names, and now reveal all the names after the match has been finished. That is why till now every match referee mentioned on the pages has been on point. We entered the names during December itself.--Anbans 585 (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But in the end there were changes, for example on April 25 vs Tai Po today, the ref listed was Shaqab of Singapore, while in the Live Report now is written Timur Faizulin. So I assume if the names are not listed in either reports, nothing should be filled in. – Flix11 (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Indonesian?--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeromi Mikhael: I am. Do you? Why did you ask? – Flix11 (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking. You get those sources for the map so fast...😄--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Me too.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CASSIOPEIA was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

We need independent sources (at least 2 in any languages) to indicate about "2019" Johan Cruyff Shield as this is the subject of the article

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2019 Johan Cruyff Shield and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2019 Johan Cruyff Shield, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Johan Cruyff Shield, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Egghead06. I noticed that you recently removed content from 2019 EFL Championship play-off Final without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please discuss before removing well sourced content and certainly don't do it with an edit summary of "fix"! Egghead06 (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since MOS:ACCESS is a project-wide effort, it applies to all individual projects. Feel free to discus it on that project's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you finish talking in my talk page saying that I'm a vandal without reason? Are you ok or what are you doing? Please finish and discuss with Walter Golitz before undo my edits. You have to be quite with people here on Wikipedia. --82.57.44.190 (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - as you may have seen at ANI, I've offered to take you through the CVUA course if you would like to learn more about countering vandalism and using warning templates. If you would like to do this, please indicate on the ANI thread that you would like to take up the offer, and that you agree not to place any more warnings on any user's talk page until we've been through the basics and I've suggested that you start using them. If you do that, I'll set up a training page and ping you from there; if you aren't interested, I'll leave you in peace. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - just a note to make sure you're aware that I've created your page here - I think I botched my ping to you from ANI with a typo. Please read through the page, take a careful read through WP:VANDALISM and WP:TWINKLE, and ping me from there to confirm that you've got Twinkle enabled and that you're ready to proceed. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flix11 - just a note to make sure you've seen the CVUA training page, and still want to proceed with the course? Let me know if you have any questions about getting started. Cheer GirthSummit _(blether) 07:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: I have done the reading. What is next? – Felixbs 07:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can I do that? Ozehlawrence (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​ Follow the steps here: Wikipedia:Citing sources and use Template:Cite web – Flix11 (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Ozehlawrence - I'm one of Flix11's talk page stalkers - I just wanted to add that citing sources is pretty straightforward if you use the 'cite' tool, just above the editing window - select the right option from the 'Templates' drop-down menu and fill in the relevant fields. Having said that, please note our guidelines on reliable sources, particularly user generated content - this site, which you've been adding to a few different articles, is not going to be a reliable source for anything, and should not be used as a reference or inserted as an external link in any article. Please do read through the links that Flix11 and Deli nk gave you on your own talk page, and you might consider going through the tutorial, or playing the adventure, to find out more about editing. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CASSIOPEIA was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

subject doe not meet WP:NFOOTBALL notability requirements.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Amadou Sagna and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Amadou Sagna, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that change....I just want to search a newer picture for Try Sutrisno. Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - just checking whether you saw my last message on the CVUA page - do you want to proceed with the course? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Yes please. I just do not have many time since I am now focusing on my thesis. – Flix11 (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK cool, I'll put the next section on there shortly. No problem if we go slowly because of your thesis, we can proceed at whatever pace works for you, I just wanted to make sure you were still interested. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States men's national soccer team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Football at the 1956 Summer Olympics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 18:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So yeah only ESPN because is "american" or "in english" is a reliable source, but both brazilian ones, just because they are brazilian (where the copa america, actually were!) are not reliable??? terra.com.br in this case in association with the sports newspaper LANCE, and globoesporte from the huge Globo group are not reliable? just because your poor espn doesn't have the information it doesn't mean other local sources are less reliable than the american ones... so is just better to leave it blank? I can find more sources, but yeah... those are just brazilian, not in english, i.e. not reliable, right? And by the way, the numbers "in brazilian" are the same than in english.Hungryspirit (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hungryspirit: It is also unavailable in CONMEBOL site, see here for comparison in Argentina vs Chile. The latter has "Espectadores", while the final still does not have. – Flix11 (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:2019 FIFA U-17 World Cup logo.png. 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. Yogwi21 (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Does not meet WP:NFOOTY yet.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Amadou Sagna and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Amadou Sagna, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Oleksandr Zinchenko (footballer), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The kit you are referring to is last years kit that was worn in a friendly and does not belong to this seasons kits. There is a general rule around wikipedia to display only this seasons kits. There have been times in the past when teams decided to wear the next seasons kit in their final home match to promote the new kit and a general decision was taken to not involve those. Hence I will be removing the kit. Also please see the Wikipedia rules on WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR. Abhisu4 (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Bledwith. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Spencer Trethewy have been reverted or removed because they seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please see the category description before readding Bledwith (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to new ideas, but just because an idea is new doesn't mean it has to be accepted. It should be pretty obvious from the fact that those players will not accrue any further appearances this season and that they are listed among the "Out" transfers below that they have left the club. It doesn't require any special mention, and just because another page on Wikipedia does it doesn't mean we have to too. – PeeJay 16:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019–20 EFL Trophy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lincoln, Newport and Gillingham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have not been in WikiProject Football recently, but have we reached that consensus? Thanks :) Centaur271188 (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Centaur271188: You can read it in WP:LIVESCORES and the discussion on snooker. As far as I know, it only applies to scores, not goals. For football it should be after the full time whistle. For volleyball/badminton/tennis/basketball it should be only on each quarter/game/set that has/have been finished, not the overall score (eg. straight game/2 sets to nothing on badminton or 3 sets to nothing on volleyball; updates for quarter/set 1 score when the quarter/set had been ended). For me, adding goals is simply to ease updates, especially on matches with goals galore, like the Qatar we just saw, or when USA women won 13–0 vs Thailand. Ask this on WP:FOOTY to clear things, because I am no expert on WP policies. Cheers – Flix11 (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply, though I am not convinced very much :| Well, we had a long day already and it is quite late now, so I will discuss this thing later. Good night :) Centaur271188 (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it's no live updates at all for WP:FOOTY. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to get rid of the Nike logo on the kits? Govvy (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you please stop putting goalscorers in the edits and using the keys to hide them. Wait until matches are officially completed and then make the full edit. Thanks --Skyblueshaun (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from but at this present time it hasn't been approved on a discussion, so I wouldn't do it as you are just making edit after edit. I suggest you start a discussion before carrying on just to get clarification. --Skyblueshaun (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an edit suggestion Please post what you suggestion is on the pages' talk page and then we and other editors can discuss and have a general census on what we think. You claim to be making the page similar to that of Germany's team but you deleted the African U-20 Women's World Cup Qualifying Tournament section which is the the equivalent to UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship(which is included on the Germany u20 women page) this alone proves to me that your are not African or Nigerian and you lack the necessary knowledge to edit the page. You also deleted the flag of Nigeria on the pages name section and, the flag showing the coach is Nigerian, again this is very unnecessary and can be regarded as vandalism. You also deleted the flag of Nigeria on the pages name section and also the flag showing the coach is Nigerian, again this is very unnecessary and can be regarded as vandalism. You also deleted the write up that gave a detailed explanation on the Nigerian national u-20 Team -"Its primary role is the development of players in preparation for the senior women's national team. The team competes in a variety of competitions, including the biennial FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup and African U-20 Cup of Nations for Women , which is the top competitions for this age group." Deleting this information clearly shows that you have no good intention in editing the page. How is any of the information I mentioned not useful? Please explain you reason for your disruptive editingOmoYoruba45 (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have see you have resulted to disrupting editing the pages of the Nigerian National Football pages. I am giving you a last warning to detest from this behaviors or you will leave me and the Nigerian Wikipedia community no choice but to take proper actions in getting you banned. If you have a suggestion on how the page can be improved please post what you suggestion is on the pages talk page and then we can discuss if the suggestion is laudable or not with the other Wikipedia editors. OmoYoruba45 (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you changed the Scotland flags in 1967 European Cup Winners' Cup Final to a different colour. I have had a look at the Flag of Scotland article, and it says the shade of blue to be used is not fixed, and in addition to the Wiki templates, the Scottish Government logo uses a mid blue rather than the lighter shade of centuries ago. I'm not saying what you've done is wrong, but there seems to be no need to change it, any reason why you did it (just out of curiosity)? Crowsus (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crowsus: It was the flag in force then, same like you used an old name that was used in one time; e.g. Red Bull Arena (Leipzig) used the name Zentralstadion and Max-Morlock-Stadion used Frankenstadion during the 2006 World Cup. – Flix11 (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but what's your source for that colour blue being official in 1967? None of the many other articles on Scottish football from that era use that light blue flag as far as I am aware; for consistency they should really be kept the same (or all changed...) Crowsus (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article, it is said that the color was only standardized in 2003, which means prior to that, including 1967, it was the light blue one. You wanna help change them all? Be my guest. I suggest to ask the editor him/herself here. He/she added it 4 years ago. – Flix11 (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely not what the articles says. It says (direct quote with bolding by me):

"Throughout the history of fabric production natural dyes have been used to apply a form of colour,[9] with dyes from plants, including indigo from woad, having dozens of compounds whose proportions may vary according to soil type and climate; therefore giving rise to variations in shade.[10] In the case of the Saltire, variations in shades of blue have resulted in the background of the flag ranging from sky blue to navy blue. When incorporated as part of the Union Flag during the 17th century, the dark blue applied to Union Flags destined for maritime use was possibly selected on the basis of the durability of darker dyes,[11] with this dark blue shade eventually becoming standard on Union Flags both at sea and on land. Some flag manufacturers selected the same navy blue colour trend of the Union Flag for the Saltire itself, leading to a variety of shades of blue being depicted on the flag of Scotland.[12]

These variations in shade eventually led to calls to standardise the colour of Scotland's national flag,[13] and in 2003 a committee of the Scottish Parliament met to examine a petition that the Scottish Executive adopt the Pantone 300 colour as a standard."

So while you're right that the current one is only official from 2003, there was no official colour before then. And if that is what Illegitimate Barrister claimed when they created the icon, I definitely will be taking it up with them. Crowsus (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Food and beverages userboxes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flix11. Is there a reason you blanked User:Beauty320? In general you should not edit other user's page, and certainly not blank them - unless they contain obviously inappropriate content. I don't see an obvious problem with that user page. Thanks, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Mirror Cracked: It is a blatant advertisement. It is stated in WP:NOTADVERTISING. Flix11 (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you tag it for speedy deletion under criteria G11, rather than blanking it. Your edit summary of fix wasn't helpful in this case: try using edit summaries that explain why you took the action. Thanks, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flix11 is there something you do not understand about the removed material? The contributor is adding inappropriately on a govt agency site. Possibly related to the convicted person, Roy Ngerng. Not only is it inappropriate, it is an exact copy of what appears on Ngerng's page. 2401:7400:6005:2D24:92CE:8FC3:8146:AC8B (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2401:7400:6005:2D24:92CE:8FC3:8146:AC8B: Discuss in its talk page. Invite anyone understands. Flix11 (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please don't use ESPN as a source for Eredivisie statistics, they are too often incorrect

--Sb008 (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sb008: ESPN CAN ONLY have one per line. On attendance, which source back your claim? Please prove it with reliable source. Flix11 (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can add the numbers together yourself NOS. If ESPN is not able to give more than 1 team, they shouldn't report at all. Besides that they report incorrect teams and even contradict themselves. --Sb008 (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sb008: I am still waiting for the source BACKING UP your claim. Flix11 (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOS --Sb008 (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sb008: I mean which tab? First is fixtures, second is standings, and third is players' stats. Flix11 (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sb008: Got it. Will count it later. Flix11 (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already been counted (I don't do this manual, but it's generated). Others have same total, see the Dutch page Eredivisie. --Sb008 (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Netherlands women's national under-20 football team. Since you had some involvement with the Netherlands women's national under-20 football team redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Zerach (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help copy edit, the article is translated from [1]. Thanks you. Xuanfgj (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flix11, I agree with your statement on redundancy in some way, but I also feel that there is something "wrong" about putting just one manager next to each team. What if the manager took over just in the final days of the season, gives a wrong view imho. Moreover, if there really can only be one listed, then doesnt it make more sense to put there the manager at the _beginning_ of the season. Having the table with "managerial changes" follow that one would then show the evolution thereafter in a logical manner.

What about the option of integrating both tables into one?

PS: I do realize this discussion probably needs a broader audience since this structure has been used on a lot of season articles, but first I'm just curious for your thoughts first since you seem to have a strong opinion. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 14:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi wherever possible we try to have english references, although not stated clearly anywhere, Indonesian references are not always that helpful this being english wikipedia JarrahTree 07:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it would be appreciated if you acknowledged the comment, as you are adding more Indonesian language refs... :) JarrahTree 07:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​ I would appreciate if you can find just ONE English reliable source which tells the legislative polls. Flix11 (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hahah - lucu sekali - about - probably not, ok fair enough you use detik, but the big problem with the project (Indonesia on english wikipedia) is the amazing amount of lack of effort to find english sources by other editor - not you or I. Fair enough, your reply is valid, but we need to encourage other editors to find the english sources ... hehehe JarrahTree 08:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:2019 FIFA Club World Cup emblem.png. 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) 02:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please consolidate your edits and use the edit summary field properly to describe what you are changing. It fills up watchlists and the article history. SounderBruce 03:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you reverted the 7 edits Endorsements in the 2019 Indonesian presidential election? I edited the term office, some of these state officials term office were already ended, for example ministers in Working Cabinet, People's Representative Council etc Wikiketik (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiketik: Years of office shall be accurate ON the election day (17 April 2019), as per List of Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign endorsements (e.g. Senator Jeff Sessions, Representative Paul Ryan, and Governor Chris Christie) and List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign political endorsements (e.g. Governor Alejandro García Padilla, Senator Al Franken, and Representative Beto O'Rourke), who were in office on election day (9 November 2016, thus listed under the "current" section) but had left their respective listed office since. I did not edit any of those names; I just followed what has been the consensus. Flix11 (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your current edits in 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round are using Wikipedia as a live score service, under the guise of "prepare". none of these edits are verifiable at the point that you make them. You should desist editing on this article, but perhaps instead you could make these edits in a copy in your sandbox, and post them after full-time for the match. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Stvbastian. I noticed that you recently removed content from He Jiting without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You have reverted edits that already updated per WP:LINEBREAK, MOS:OVERLINK, and the ranking per BWF released on 12 November 2019. You improperly describe your edits summary to remove unnecessary spaces, but there were much updating tht you remove. You also reverted the table column header not based on the MOS:TABLES and H:TABLE, but in your personal preference . And remember, Wikipedia is not a live score service, so you should wait until the match of the tournament finished then update the score (your live score edits He Jiting, Du Yue ) . Stvbastian (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a sound comment from @Stvbastian:, and does not appear to be a case of vandalism on your Talk Page. Very similar response to one that I made, to re-emphasise that Wikipedia is not a live score service. Matilda Maniac (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nassau (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dylan Levitt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear notable - no senior professional appearances.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 07:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canoeing at the 2019 Southeast Asian Games, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:PH2019 Modern Pentathlon.png. 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) 18:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding final/only warnings to editors whose only edits are apparently good-faith live updates to footballer player stats. An appropriate reaction would to be explain to them why we don't so this. You've been here long enough to know this, and, if I'm not mistaken, came close to sanctions for similarly aggressive and inappropriate actions in the past. Thank you for listening. Struway2 (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Struway2 (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Struway2: For the record, after your warning I gave level 1 warnings for one-timers and level 2 and 3 for those who had been warned before. Flix11 (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Issuing warnings at any level for apparently good-faith edits without going with an explanation first isn't appropriate. Trawling through page histories with a view to issuing warnings at any level for minor unconstructive edits made days before really isn't appropriate. Thank you for listening. Struway2 (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flix11, you seem to have a history of incorrectly placing warnings on people who never did any vandalism. I can be wrong but maybe you can enlighten me why I was placed a Level 4-im warning for this? Will wait for your response. Thanks.   Sub |_HMU  16:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Subwaymuncher: In Special:Diff/930657616 you reverted a correct vandalism revert; the club goals on infobox only apply if scored in the league, not all competitions. At that time, Greenwood had just scored 1 league goal. The source only used on the stats table. But sorry for the warning. I was quite hesitant to even warn you in the first place but I guess I do not know you enough. Flix11 (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:2600:387:8:5:0:0:0:4D, you may be blocked from editing.

Please stop it. An "only warning" for a piece of minor vandalism is ridiculous and you know it. You need to get out of the habit, soon. Struway2 (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Struway2: It was deliberate actions. Go see for yourself first. Flix11 (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it was deliberate: no-one's suggesting their hand slipped. But what they did was changed an attendance figure on a football match. See for yourself. That is either a test edit or minor vandalism, already corrected by someone else. I've removed your completely inappropriate immediate warning and replaced it with a level 1 warning, which is the absolute maximum required for a one-off, particularly on a dynamic IP. Struway2 (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Your pursuit of a Checkuser or admin (Bbb23, ST47, Mz7 & JJMC89) to agree with your accusations after they've already been considered is both disruptive and against policy. STOP IT! Cabayi (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: Already stopped like a century ago, just chill. I did not even know if that light request is considered harassing. What you should know with cool head that this user is already made several completely bias pro-Muhammad Rizieq Shihab view such as in Indonesia–Saudi Arabia relations (1, 2). Rizieq's foul-mouth might not known outside Indonesia but he is known here in Indonesia to have called for non-Muslim persecutions. Flix11 (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flix. I wanted to come to you regarding your revert to my change on the infobox of the Manchester derby article. While I can entirely understand your revert - and I hope you'll notice that, at this stage, I have no simply reverted it back, I wanted to ask you to further justify your decision.

While I like the idea of there being some consistency across articles, I find it hard to support the idea that just because something exists in the same format in article X, we should keep it the same in article Y. This is, to my mind, a fairly weak argument based off aesthetic concerns only, and one which fosters stagnation and discourages Wikipedia's main principle: BE BOLD. Wikipedia has always distinguished itself as being a place where new blood can come in and potentially turn things on their heads by trying something new. If you look at the massive changes which have occurred over time from the way Wikipedia's formatting used to look you can see huge changes, but these have only come about because people in the past decided to challenge what had gone before and said "we can do better than this".

I have been on Wikipedia for over 15 years now, and while I am far from the most frequent editor, I have long made a habit of challenging what had gone before and saying "this could be done differently". I fervently believe that the argument "it is done differently elsewhere" is not a particularly strong reason to revert an edit, and what's more I believe that Wikipedia's own internal guidelines support me in this assertion. Please don't get me wrong here - I don't believe there is anything inherently wrong with basing your decisions off another article, but I believe that it should only be done when you have specific reasoning to believe that the other article does it better. So I am asking you: do you have any further reasons to believe that we should copy the other articles you mentioned, or was your revert more about consistency? For my part I will give you my justification: I believe that the current layout of that part of the box is inherently recentist and neglects the wider history of this fixture. The match was not only ever played at CoMS or Old Trafford, so I don't see why this infobox should only show those two grounds. I also believe that the two column approach provides several advantages: it places the two teams on the same level, thus reducing accusations of one being promoted above the other, it reduces the potential size of the infobox if each stadium were placed on a separate line, and it provides a nice contrast which gives an indication of how many different stadia the two teams have played at in the past.

I invite you to consider and defend your revert. I do strongly believe that my change could be a positive enhancement for the article and could potentially even become a new standard in other articles if allowed to stand, but I don't wish for an edit war and therefore would like to hear your own arguments before considering my next course of action. Falastur2 ^Talk 23:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Falastur2: Sorry first, but in my understanding the stadium listed are only those currently in use, hence my reason. If we listed all the stadiums the matches had been played in, shouldn't we list Wembley Stadium as well due to 2011 FA Cup semi-final and the Shield? But I get your point. Thank you for noticing. Flix11 (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get the infobox template changed from Stadiums to Main Stadiums, then that would remove issues of ambiguity and perceived need for a exhaustive list of venues. Elsewhere in a rivalry article, a table of teams' records at each venue (current and historic, including 'neutral') would be informative and relevant. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your viewpoint Flix, but I'm not sure I agree with it. I would be interested in seeing any discussion where this has previously taken place, if it has, as I would like to go over the arguments for and against. The issue here is that this is very much a massive case of recentism. Why are we placing undue emphasis on the current stadia when this is a historic record article? What exactly makes the current stadia more important than the past ones.

And @Matilda Maniac: - what makes the current stadia "main stadia"? Why are we promoting the current ones above the old ones for the sole virtue of being in use right now? Surely if we were assessing the main stadia the correct thing to go by would be number of derbies contested there, in which case Maine Road would be City's main stadium, not CoMS.

As for the comment about needing to include neutral grounds, I did consider that. Adding the neutral grounds is a possible too, though I would argue they are less significant as neutral grounds were never a primary "home" location, they were incidental only. Perhaps instead of relabelling the template "main stadia" we can label it "home stadia"? Falastur2 ^Talk 08:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any further comments? I still feel fairly strongly that we can do better here, and I still believe my edit has merit. I won't restate my edit if you have further concerns which we can discuss, but otherwise I'd like to try putting them back in. Falastur2 ^Talk 13:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Falastur2: It might be the best to be discussed at WP:FOOTY because this might as well applies to many articles e.g. Derby d'Italia (add Delle Alpi, Olimpico Torino), Arsenal F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry and Arsenal F.C.–Chelsea F.C. rivalry (add Highbury, at least). Flix11 (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Wikipedia gave me no notification that you had responded. Your suggestion is reasonable. I'll take it to WP:FOOTY, though at the same time I would like to put it on record that I still disagree with the idea that all articles are supposed to look entirely alike and that we should consider ourselves bound to follow the style other pages use. Yes, it can be aesthetically pleasing to have some similarities, but going for total parity is foolish to my mind and puts unnecessary restraints on forward thinking. Falastur2 ^Talk 17:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So nine days on and there was no response at all to my suggestion. I can only interpret this as an indication that the matter is simply not considered that big of a deal and no-one has any strong opinions on it.

So where do we go from here? My belief is still that there is scope for improvements to be made to articles outside of what is simply the standard style. I have raised this in the public forum and there is no further opinion and no consensus. I would still like to make the change but I would rather not do so without reaching some kind of agreement with you first. Falastur2 ^Talk 23:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened the discussion with a sentence only. Please kindly wait for responses. Flix11 (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello you, can you help me update the new Vietnamese team shirt 2020? https://thethao247.vn/250-u23-chau-a-lo-dien-ao-dau-moi-cuc-chat-cua-u23-viet-nam-tai-u23-chau-a-d196227.html https://www.facebook.com/Grandsport.clothing/ Nguonnhanluc853 (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nguonnhanluc853: Wait for User:ShadowBryan3's upload. Thanks for telling this info. Flix11 (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hope as soon as possible thanks a lot.Nguonnhanluc853 (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: In a few minutes it will be ready. ShadowBryan3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot.Nguonnhanluc853 (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been recently slapping sock templates on these userpages:

• User:RomanKemp19
• User:DJMaina
• User:LoganPaul19
• User:DJMoore20

Regarding DJMoore20, you first tagged it at the end of November. I deleted it, and you recreated it, in effect reverting me.

I have deleted them all. First, it is not your job to tag socks. Second, many of the tags were absolutely false, e.g., calling a sock "confirmed by a CheckUser" when the block of the account was not a CU block, or even imposed by a CheckUser.

This is your only warning. If I see you do this again, I will block you for disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of LoganPaul19 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Regarding my edit that you undid on the 2020 Thailand Masters (badminton) article, in all the years I've been editing on Wikipedia it's always been the case that the Current sports events category can be added at any point on the day (local time) an event starts, and doesn't need to be added at the very specific time an event starts. If this has changed and there is a global consensus about this, please direct me to it and that's absolutely fine, otherwise there wasn't much need to undo this, especially just one hour before the event was due to start! Edin75 (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Flix11 does a lot of good things in Wikepedia, but appears to spoil some of this with constant behaviour that is testing the limits of other editors. Please focus on the wonderful things that polish your reputation, rather than tarnish. Matilda Maniac (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You thank my edit above and then behave in a fashion that causes the next 2 sections on this page. I simply do not understand. Matilda Maniac (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

add stats for chencho gyeltshen, continental record table for defenders and paro (others who need) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.244.164 (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please update the news about stadium and others, and don't just revert any updates info of you don't know Newbiw (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith next time and don't warn an experienced editor like me. Revert to my last edit not yours.--Sakiv (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself have done it tens of times, so don't do what you don't want others to do!--Sakiv (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Re this I wonder if you could tag the specific references that are worrying you with {{cn}} so I can replace them and then we can remove the tag at the top? Thanks, --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The article that you're linking to as your reason for changing all the uses of Semifinals and Quarterfinals to Semi-finals and Quarter-finals on the Australian Open pages is specific to snooker articles. It even states "This is a style guide for articles that come within the scope of WikiProject Snooker." Therefore, it doesn't apply to other sports. In MOS:HYPHEN, it doesn't give any specific requirement as to the use of these words, but it should be noted that the Manual of Style also refers to "Semicolons", not "Semi-colons", suggesting that similar words are generally preferred without hyphens. The Single-elimination tournament article also refers to Semifinals and Quarterfinals. If a precedent has been set on tennis articles using these words without a hyphen, they should continue to do so until a specific tennis MoS has been drawn up, as both uses are acceptable. Linking to the snooker MoS really doesn't make any sense. Edin75 (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Edin75: This reference is also used widely in football, like in all FIFA World Cup tournaments. Flix11 (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Flix11: Football articles aren't following snooker's Manual of Style! That's just how football articles have always been written. Tennis articles have always used the words Semifinals and Quarterfinals. Both uses are acceptable, as per Wikipedia's overall Manual of Style. If you're going to single-handedly change the way all tennis articles are written from now on, you should probably try to get a consensus? The snooker MoS article you're linking to when you make these changes to the Australian Open pages has no bearing on tennis articles whatsoever. It's irrelevant. Edin75 (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Edin75: Yes, they are. Check for yourself, there is a wikilink on it somewhere I forgot. And I do not change all, just 2020's. I am not going to enforce it on any others. Flix11 (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Flix11: Football articles have been using hyphens in these words since before the snooker MoS existed. It's not something they adopted after that article was drawn up. If you want to change it for the 2020 Australian Open, that's fine, but if anyone changes it back, citing consistency with previous articles, they'd be entitled to do so, and a snooker MoS isn't really an argument against that. Edin75 (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Maine Road (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Robert McAlpine

Provinces of Indonesia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Maluku

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, 2020 Australian Open – Day-by-day summaries, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Interstellarity (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Australian Open – Day-by-day summaries, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Interstellarity (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm CodeMars04. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to 2020 Copa Libertadores qualifying stages have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. CodeMars04 (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeMars04: Huh? Shortening codes to the exact same results (hence more efficient) and updating the tenses are vandalizing? Maybe, in Colombia. Flix11 (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edit summary. Was that really necessary? The edit you reverted wasn't vandalism, and referring to another editor as a "delusional Hindu fanatic" is a personal attack. You can remove comments from your talk page or revert comments made to your talk page without such hostility. Please reconsider your approach to unwelcome edits on your talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd: Sorry, I did not know what he was talking about, so I just reverted it. I have never attacked a religion so I feel a bit offended by that accusation. If he felt that Nazi (which I despised) symbol equals Hinduism, I do not know what to say. Flix11 (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Swastika, you'll see that the symbol was in use by other cultures long before the Nazis adopted it. And as I said, there's no problem with reverting the comment — the problem was your edit summary. I see that you've been doing a lot of recent changes patrolling, keeping articles clean from vandalism. I did that for awhile, and I noticed that when I spent a lot of time doing that, I started to see bad intentions and vandalism in everything and I was becoming suspicious of every new editor. You can start to feel under siege. But as an experienced editor, you should want to make Wikipedia less of a battlefield, not more. And even with a real vandal, just revert/warn/report; you don't need to get personal about it. I won't lecture anymore, just avoid the personal attacks, okay? Schazjmd (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you explain why you reverted me, with the completely useless description of "fix", minutes after I explained why I undid your original edit? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattythewhite: Just for tidiness. And I did not revert you. You said it should not be at the header so I followed the club table. Flix11 (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flix11,

you have not been blocked from editing because of Special:Diff/945062657.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which player does not have a surname here? Plus even if a player does not have a surname, the names are then sorted according to the first names, for example, the Burmese names. There is a very big difference in sorting conventions in club competitions and national competitions. Players of a particular nationality do not necessarily play for clubs of the same nationality. The reason why players are sorted according to nationalities on national competitions is because the main question there to be answered is "Who scored for this country", whereas the same thing can not be applied for club competitions. Please check other club competition pages for reference.--Anbans 585 (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anbans 585: Douglas, Leandro. Think it would be nicer if we do not sort on surname since they do not have one on their common name. Flix11 (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not able to make it clear in the argument I was making above. Let me rephrase it - "Players should be sorted according to the their surnames or common names. For example, if you check 2019 AFC Champions League page then you would notice how "Hulk" is used as the name to be sorted instead of his actual name "Givanildo Vieira de Sousa". Sorting on nationality is a bit meaningless, considering how it is not a national competition, where people try to see "Which Japanese players scored 1 goal?, Which Iranian players scored 2 goals?", This kind of argument is totally baseless here.--Anbans 585 (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted by common name. But OK. Flix11 (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check how names of Spanish players are sorted on 2018 FIFA World Cup page using the full names and the common names.--Anbans 585 (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should I revert the edit on the AFC Champions League page if we are in agreement about the revert?Anbans 585 (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is why Burmese names are considered one name, and are thus sorted using the first word. For example, Aung Kyaw Naing will be sorted using Aung, you can check how Burmese names are sorted on the national competition pages like 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round.Anbans 585 (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wondering what you were trying to achieve with this? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps brush up on your English if you think this sentence needed the word 'for. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the page is original research, which is against Wikipedia policies. Just wondering why we should keep this information (also the page's content is unprofessional gramatically) --TamilMirchi (TALK)

Hi Flix11! I've been running into you in recent changes patrolling and I happened to notice that you don't have the rollback or pending changes reviewer user rights. I hope you don't mind, but I went through your contributions and I noticed that you're quite active in recent changes patrolling, and that you consistently view and undo vandalism and bad faith disruption. I believe that these user rights would be useful for you to have and that you'd make good use of both tools. Instead of having you formally request these user rights at WP:PERM, I went ahead and just gave them to you. These user rights allow you to review edits that are pending approval on pages currently under pending changes protection, and to quickly revert the edits of other users in cases of blatant vandalism.

Rollback user right

Please keep these things in mind at all times when using rollback to revert edits:

• Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle. It just adds a "[Rollback]" button next to a page's latest edits - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you (obviously).
• Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only, and never used to revert good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose, the rights will be revoked.
• Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask.

For more information on how to use rollback, see this tutorial page.

Pending changes reviewer user right

Keep these things in mind regarding the tool or when you're reviewing any pending changes:

• A list of articles with pending edits awaiting review can be viewed at Special:PendingChanges, and a list of the articles currently under pending changes protection can be viewed at Special:StablePages.
• Being granted and having these rights does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you (obviously).
• You'll generally want to accept any pending changes that appear to be legitimate edits and are not blatant vandalism or disruption, and reject edits that are problematic or that you wouldn't accept yourself.
• Never accept any pending changes that contain obvious and clear vandalism, blatant neutral point of view issues, copyright violations, or BLP violations.

You may find the following pages useful to review:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline and tutorial on using the rights and reviewing pending changes.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, a summary of pending changes protection, the pending changes user right, and how it applies.
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy section on pending changes protection and its appropriate application and use by administrators.

I'm sure you'll do fine with these user rights - they're pretty straight-forward and they don't drastically change the interface that you're used to already. Nonetheless, please don't hesitate to leave me a message on my user talk page if you run into any questions, get stuck anywhere, run into any issues or problems, or if you're not sure if the use of either tool is appropriate or not and need my input or advice - I'll be more than happy to help you any time you need it. If you no longer want one or both of these user rights, let me know and I'll be happy to remove them for you. Thank you for helping to locate, revert, and remove vandalism, as well as review and keep disruptive edits off of Wikipedia - it's a very thankless job to perform and I want you to know that it doesn't go unnoticed and that I appreciate it very much. Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm from Austria and we are all in Covid quarantine, so I have time to help on Wikipedia to strengthen the project. My English is not very good, but I speak Austrian German.

As far as I could check the sources, they are officially from the Austrian Armed Forces or from recognized Austrian newspapers (or NATO-News). Some mentions appear again and again in Central European media. They also match the homepage of Habsburg, which is not a source for me. Maybe you can check my suggestions for improvement again. I hope everything is healthy in Jakarta and you are fine. Greetings from Vienna, we expect snow next week! Stay healthy!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.96.185.157 (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Could you please explain this addition to the article Ghulam Ahmad (forester).

The paragraph about 'life and education' contains quite a lot of outsourced information which your most recent edit supports.

Denver| Thank you (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Denver20: An IP mass blanked the article, I thought he committed vandalism. Flix11 (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Flix11: Could you please explain your most recent edit(s) which included the re-adding of information to the 'Life and Education' section of the article. The information is not sourced well and does not have any references. Denver| Thank you (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries when you revert non-vandalism edits so other editors know what you're objecting to in the edit. Reverting a good-faith edit like this one without any comment is unhelpful. Thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Flix11: Saya mau tanya. Kenapa suntingan saya dibalikan ?Special:Diff/942269248 Special:Diff/942269147 Adrizky (talk) 06:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flix11!

Good catch - I don't know how that happened. I'd actually made two large additions to the Texas sections that seem to have been saved as deletions. All that work down the drain! Thanks for saving some of it, and I'll do what I can to add what I thought I'd added before.

Yppizzippy (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Yppizzippy 01:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The vandal You reported [2] is a long-standing vandal. He terrorizes regularly on hr.wiki since late June 2019 on daily basis. At first it looked like ordinary vandalisms, and later he turned very rude and personal towards Croatian wikiusers, posting threatning content on the talkpages, with posting very personal informations. He also likes to hound, so he also vandalizes mainspace and other pages that targeted user edited. Targeted users are the users that removed his vandalisms in real time. He also has a pick on few hr.wiki users so he sends them very rude messages. Kubura (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that he also did that to You.[3] [4] I recognize the edit pattern [5]. Kubura (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]