Jump to content

User talk:Flix11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lemonade51 (talk | contribs) at 12:01, 6 February 2021 (→‎Manchester United-Arsenal rivalry: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The summary

As of 5 February 2021.

CASES PER 100,000

  • <250: Bengkulu, Banten, Aceh, Sumsel, Sumut, NTB, Jambi, Lampung, Kalbar, NTT
  • 250-499: Sumbar, Papua, Kalteng, Riau, Kalsel, Gorontalo, Maluku, Kepri, Sultra, Jateng, Babel, Malut, Jatim, Jabar, Sulbar, Sulteng
  • 500-749: Papbar, Bali, Sulsel, DIY, Sulut
  • 750-999: none
  • ≥1,000: DKI, Kaltim, Kaltara

CONFIRMED CASES

  • <10,000: Aceh, Sultra, Kepri, NTB, Papbar, Maluku, Kaltara, Bengkulu, Sulteng, Gorontalo, Jambi, Kalbar, Babel, Malut, NTT, Sulbar
  • 10,000-24,999: Sumut, Kalsel, DIY, Papua, Sumsel, Sulut, Lampung, Kalteng
  • 25,000-49,999: Bali, Banten, Kaltim, Riau, Sulsel, Sumbar
  • 50,000-99,999: none
  • ≥100,000: DKI, Jabar, Jateng, Jatim

RECOVERIES

  • <10,000: Sulut, Papua, Aceh, Sultra, Kepri, Lampung, Papbar, NTB, Maluku, Bengkulu, Sulteng, Kaltara, Gorontalo, Kalbar, Babel, Jambi, Malut, NTT, Sulbar
  • 10,000-24,999: Bali, Sumut, Kalsel, DIY, Banten, Kalteng, Sumsel
  • 25,000-49,999: Sulsel, Kaltim, Sumbar, Riau
  • 50,000-99,999: Jateng
  • ≥100,000: DKI, Jabar, Jatim

DEATHS

  • <250: Kepri, Sultra, Sulteng, Papua, Bengkulu, Gorontalo, Papbar, NTT, Malut, Maluku, Kaltara, Babel, Jambi, Sulbar, Kalbar
  • 250-499: Aceh, Sulut, NTB, Kalteng
  • 500-999: Sumut, Sulsel, Sumsel, Riau, Kalsel, Bali, Sumbar, Lampung, DIY, Banten
  • 1,000-2,499: Kaltim, Jabar
  • ≥2,500: DKI, Jateng, Jatim

Bali and Banten passed 500 deaths. Aceh passed 250 deaths. Kalteng has not passed 10k recoveries. HiChrisBoyleHere (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sumbar has not passed 500 cases/100,000. Sulut has. HiChrisBoyleHere (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Please block

Done, to match the other /16 range. Yes I know the /22 of the latest IP was also blocked, but blocking the /16 is probably a good idea too. Graham87 06:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone that block after noticing the conversation you had with Mz7, who placed the /22 block, and looking more deeply into the range's contributions. I've noticed from your contribs that you asked *eight* admins individually ... the admins' noticeboards are a better and more socially acceptable way of getting admins' attention. Graham87 06:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham87: The IPs inside the 3 ranges have vandalized pages I edited and taunted me personally since 7 June. And he (assuming the vandal is one same boy) did it all over the Wikimedia projects, even in Wikiquote, Croatian Wikipedia, and MetaWiki. So I did so because I am frustrated on this. And the WP:AIV was at a massive backlog which saw about 30 undone reports if I am not mistaken. I strongly believe the vandal is someone who knows me in real life, since he knows about my preferences and Twitter account. But I still can not find out who he is. So I suggest you to reinstate the block and do it longer than a month I presume. Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathise with your predicament, but unfortunately South/South-east Asian IP address pools are some of the most dynamic in the world in my experience, and it's extremely hard to block an individual troublemaker from these ranges without either blocking an entire region or playing a constant game of Whac-A-Mole. If another admin feels comfortable re-imposing the block they can feel free to do so without consulting me, but I'm not quite there yet. Graham87 09:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kit

Hey. I love your kit designs. I wondered if you could add a third kit to Millwall F.C. when you find the time, it was just released today and is a great red design (https://shop.millwallfc.co.uk/replica-kits/third-kit/). Cheers! TheLostBoy (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Cavani

Noticed this is the 2nd time you are reverting my update when there was absolute no need. I updated the stats correctly in infobox this time. Give it a check. Would like to see a reply from you. Thanks! Kokoeist (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kokoeist: You only updated the header. Flix11 (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Flix11 I updated the stats in infobox, and updated the timestamp. There was no mistake in at all. There was no need to revert it. You had the career stats section to update. You could've done it without reverting my edit. There is no rule that an editor have to update the infobox and career stats at the same time. Kokoeist (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kokoeist: Yeah, sorry. It was merely instinctive. Flix11 (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No probs mate. I just wanted to know if I did anything wrong there. Happy editing. Cheers! Kokoeist (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

I take it you have to be in a special sect to edit these things as all you did was undo and redo exactly what i did. Please explain Redmist79 (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Redmist79: You did on De Gea and Fernandes BEFORE the match was over and it is violating WP:LIVESCORES. As far as I knew, the match was not done yet. Flix11 (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for page protection

You might have missed my WP:Notification when I declined a request at WP:RFPP so I am posting here. The previous request is at permalink where I wrote:

As above (Mauricio Pochettino), I'm declining but if the problem continues, please add a short section on article talk showing why the edits are wrong and ping me. Then I'll look again.

The problem is that only someone familiar with the topic would know why the IP edits are vandalism (per definition at WP:VAND). I have declined the new request but am very willing to protect the page if I could see why the IP edits are vandalism. An explanation on talk also helps others who see activity at the article. Use a heading like "Recent edits" and ping me from there. Johnuniq (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptive edit summaries

In heavily edited pages, could you please be a little more descriptive in your edit summaries, saying what you're doing and why? Like this one. What did you fix? It's helpful for the many people trying to review the sometimes hundreds of edits per day. ~Awilley (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad FC 2020-21 kit

Hi. I observed that you worked a lot on many football pages and need a small help. There is a new jersey design for Hyderabad FC and was hoping if you could help in creating it to place in the 2020-21 Hyderabad FC season season page. The link for both home and away kits can be found below
kit
Please let me know if you could help me with this. Thanks. SaGa (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Man Utd 202021 UCL

The changes I made were correct. Why change them back? BRACK66 (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool

Hi Flix : sorry I lost my cool with you this afternoon. I will try to behave a bit better. Matilda Maniac (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your response

I think your response will be valuable here:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indonesian people with COVID-19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunDawn (talk • contribs) 04:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

Hi Flix11. I've seen you put up the new kits for NK Široki Brijeg. Now I've recently asked for help at the Template talk:Football kit/pattern list but no one answered. You see, three new kits were revealed for FK Željezničar Sarajevo not long ago, the home, away and third kit ones. Could you please design, upload them on commons and put them in the article's infobox? If it's easier to know, you don't have too do the third one if you don't want to, just the two main ones. I would greatly appreciate it. They were made by Macron. Here are the links for all three:

Kirbapara (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in infobox

I hope you will respond this time, as this is not the first time I've left a message here or that we've had different views...

"Publisher is the body, website is the ".com". And people tends to read the infobox first hence importance for source. Who says sourcing is only limited to 1?"

  • The publisher is not the body. Publisher means that the origin of the reference, such as "Burnley F.C." (not Football Club) will not be shown in italics. When citing a website, it is in italics. It might not be a big deal, but when nominating an article for e.g. FAC, people will mention it.
  • Because people tend the read the infobox first, that doesn't mean there is any need for a reference, when it's already there further in the text/body of the article. Sourcing is therefore limited to only one place, as it becomes duplicate. See WP:INFOBOXREF (it's really stated clearly here...).

Again, I'm really not here to piss you off and I don't have any bad intentions. I'm going to revert the edits in both articles and I hope it's all clear now. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WA8MTWAYC: Read Template:Cite_web#Publisher. Flix11 (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Your link doesn't mention any of what you've stated, only that the publisher parameter can be linked if it has a wikipedia page. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So again, your edits in this setting are not justified on both the Burnley F.C. and Turf Moor pages. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WA8MTWAYC: "The publisher is the company, organization or other legal entity that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.)." Flix11 (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point here? How is that relevant to the infobox debate? Regarding the publisher parameter, we don't know who is the publisher behind Burnley F.C.'s website, it could be an independant company. For example, 11v11.com is the website, but "AFS Enterprises" is the publisher.
What I meant by "mix up": because of the edit, the Burnley F.C. sources got two different parameters, either website or publisher, and it should be only one, because of consistency. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:INFOBOXREF carefully. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WA8MTWAYC: Alright, erase that. But regarding if you write website it should be burnleyfootballclub.com or if publisher then Burnley Football Club. Flix11 (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I used to write the full name indeed ("Football Club"), but I changed it some time ago to "F.C." because I wanted it to align with the titles of the WP articles. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam national football team update kit 2021?

Is there an update to the player shirt yet you? https://www.facebook.com/grandsportvietnam.official/ Nguonnhanluc853 (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can you update the Vietnam team shirt 2021 help me? https://grandsportvietnam.com/Nguonnhanluc853 (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nguonnhanluc853: Please contact User talk:JonasBR. He makes kits. Thank you. Flix11 (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I asked, but he did not respond? Nguonnhanluc853 (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nguonnhanluc853: Just be patient. Ask him on Commons Wikimedia instead of here. My request for Norwich City 3rd kit was only fulfilled about 3 months later. He seems put forward kits of his own Brazilian minnow clubs now. Again, contact him on Commons Wikimedia. Flix11 (talk) 05:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DJPrettyUnicorns

Didn't have the SPI page on my watchlist and hadn't realize someone got to it before me, lol. I'll add mine as a comment to yours. Magitroopa (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI... DJSpinnyDan is probably yet another account. Magitroopa (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

It seems you also work on articles related to Indonesia, I was looking for article expansion help at articles like Islamic advice literature, Draft:Aurats (word) an article about historical linguistics and in article several sections are in need of expansion, besides presently those do not have coverage about Indonesian. Please do visit those articles as and when time permits you and pl. do help in article expansions if those topics interest you.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 08:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Toyota Thailand Open

Thanks for the explanation. I moved your comment to User talk:Vinish Kumar V; please let me know if there are any more disruptive edits. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United page still not fixed

Hi Flix11, I noticed you reverted some of the edits on the Manchester United seasons page but unfortunately looked like the harm had already been caused may have to revert more because the layout still hasnt been fixed. Just drawing your attention. Thanks Ampimd (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

8 individual scorers

Apologies for the missing summary. The other matches had 7 individual scorers. So Manchester United are the only side to have 8 individual scorers in a single match. MattSucci (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United-Arsenal rivalry

Could you please take it to the talkpage or WT:FOOTY before reverting changes. For instance, there is no need to add statistics of every single league match since 1992, when a head-to-head table would suffice. Lemonade51 (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Then erase these kind of records on all pages. It was not me who added the league record in the 1st place," firstly, just because one page has a record of every single match does not mean this page should follow suit. Wikipedia is not a statistics directory; head-to-head results would suffice and if people want to know the result of in a league encounter in 2003 then they can be directed to the external links (where 11v11 has that information). Secondly, trying to deflect blame ("It was not me who added the league record in the 1st place") isn't going to solve anything. The page explicitly states that the rivalry died out around 2005, so what would be the point of including results post that period? Moreover, there is a recency bias, why are Premier League results only included and not Football League (when the rivalry 'started'?). Point is, a table with a summary of results is better than a comprehensive list. I've restored the page to how it was when it passed the WP:GA criteria. If you wish to challenge then post a comment on the talkpage or WT:FOOTY rather than reverting. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flix11&oldid=1005188849"