User talk:MrFlyingPies23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:FlagPies23)
My stress levels

Emergency user slap button

Emergency slap button

Editors: Use this button if the user is malfunctioning. (direct link)
Editors can report a malfunctioning user to the village stocks.

August 2023[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Australian Football League. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 07:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I added the wrong text FlagPies23 (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Collingwood Football Club, you may be blocked from editing. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:4TheWynne. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. —C.Fred (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop I don't like it[edit]

Stop insulting me thats not allowed. They are not disruptive edits. Plus you can't talk to an under 18 like this FlagPies23 (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of the messages other than this one have been standard, templated messages; there have hardly been insults.
As for the claim your edits were not disruptive...some of them have been. A cursory review shows a number of grammar errors and some introduction of redundant information, as well as breaking links and deleting relevant information.
Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. If you are unable to engage in civil interaction with fellow editors, your editing privileges can be revoked by your account being blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I broke a link because I didn't code it right or I think "wikilink" it right. If I knew how to undo an edit this wouldn't happen. I'm telling you now I swear I did nothing disruptive on Collingwood Football Club. I shouldn't be near a ban FlagPies23 (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article title is Colliwobbles; there was no need to have changed that. —C.Fred (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
can you leave me alone I'm upset 😭😭. I'm not editing ANYMORE OK FlagPies23 (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me exactly why I can't edit on Collingwood Football Club?😭
The 2022 season has not been updated with the Copeland Trophy winner. Which was Jack Crisp. And another nickname for Collingwood is the Maggie's. Why can I not change that? It doesn't seem disruptive to me. FlagPies23 (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Were it just the Copeland Trophy winner, it might only have been tagged as needing a source. The Maggies nickname, not disruptive. But looking at the whole of this edit, it's the changes to the 1959–89: "Colliwobbles" section and breaking the template linking to Colliwobbles that is what is the clear disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh ok FlagPies23 (talk) 05:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Nos. 18 and 23 at Wikipedia:ANI advice it will save you a lot of grief. If you disagree with 18 and 23, then Wikipedia is not for you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree? FlagPies23 (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sinclair (footballer) edits were spot on[edit]

Just a little message to let you know that your edits today to Jack Sinclair (footballer) were on the money. The (alleged) awards added to the article were uncited, and it is proper to remove information that is not verifiable via reliable sources.

Not that editors are on a points system, but six points to you if we had one. 😁 —C.Fred (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks dude! FlagPies23 (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Pendlebury edit was not[edit]

What was this edit supposed to achieve? It's essentially just repeating that Pendlebury played in a premiership. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 09:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's saying that he won the premiership. Before I added that it only said that he PLAYED in the 2010 grand final. FlagPies23 (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you have to revert my edit 😭😭 FlagPies23 (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it didn't. You're confusing premiership with grand final... it didn't say "grand final player", it said "premiership player", meaning he played in a premiership. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to me if you think I'm vandalising.[edit]

Add a topic or reply here if you need to remove an edit I made on the collingwood football club..FlagPies23 (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Mitchell Marsh[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mitchell Marsh, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Mitchell Marsh[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mitchell Marsh, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of VFL/AFL premiers. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 10:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

not again. FlagPies23 (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
bruh. The guy I reverted has no fucking idea FlagPies23 (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are you on about? The editor you reverted was correct... 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User page[edit]

Please do not, under any circumstances, ever create a user page for another user again as you did at my user page - which I have opted to have deleted in the past. This is completely out of order and a totally unacceptable thing to do on Wikipedia. It's my user page, it's my choice. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

k Karen can I have a burger? I ALSO LOVE BLUE SQUARES!!! 🟦 FlagPies23 (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 2023–24 AFL Women's player movement period. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@4TheWynnehi. The retirement date is 3 November not 2 November. At least that's what I'm seeing. FlagPies23 (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Collingwood Chairman Jeff Browne.jpeg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Collingwood Chairman Jeff Browne.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 06:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how to I know if it's non free content. And if it is how do I add it? FlagPies23 (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody explicitly stated that it's free, then it's safe to assume that it isn't. From what I can tell, this image is was taken by Luis Ascui for News Corp Australia. -- Cosmic6811 🍁 (T · C) 07:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
got it. I checked fox sports in. It is legal in United states and is not copyright (restricted) FlagPies23 (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse[edit]

Hello,

Can I kindly suggest that you not sign up to be a Teahouse host? I appreciate your desire to help others around here but I think you would benefit from gaining more familiarity with our policies and guidelines before becoming a host, as you are still a pretty new editor. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What happens if I say no. MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can do what you want, but if you continue to give bad advice like you did at Wikipedia:Teahouse#How many redirects pages to create to an page?, you could get sanctioned by an admin. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue to help my fellow editors. Unless you really want me to step down. MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for reverting, please?[edit]

May I ask why you reverted this edit of mine? Surely it was not solely because I did not provide an edit summary, but I cannot see any issue with the edit itself that would warrant reversion. Thanks. Mjaðveig (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I provided why on your talk page. MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edits with so edit summaries have to be reverted as they can be confusing to new editors. MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied on my talk page and will not go into detail here, but for the record let me say that your last claim is patently untrue. Mjaðveig (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Umm It's not. Read Help:Edit summary. Thank you. MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We get a lot of edits that introduce subtle vandalism. Generally they do not have edit summaries, or (if they do) the edit summaries do not explain the edit properly. So if you make an edit that is not easy to understand from the diff, and you choose not to provide an understandable reason for it in the edit summary, then it is your own fault if your edit gets reverted.
I was able to understand Mjaðveig's edit by looking at a before and after on different windows at the same time. But I could not understand it from the diff. In my opinion, MrFlyingPies23 was right to insist on an edit summary.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits with no summary[edit]

Although it is helpful when editors use edit summaries, you should not revert their edits merely because they did not provide a summary. If the edit itself has no problems, you should leave it as it is. If the lack of a summary is a real problem, just give the editor a friendly reminder on their talk page rather than reverting. – Teratix ₵ 04:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. I thought you meant don't revert and don't give a friendly reminder. We should always provide an edit summary when editing. Maybe not with minor edits, that wasn't minor. I get what your saying. Thanks for the advice. * MrFlyingPies23 * (Talk?) | (*Contrib*) 04:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do mean don't revert. You should not revert edits for the fact they don't have summaries. Many edits have a purpose obvious enough not to need summaries. Even when an edit summary would be helpful, you should not reflexively revert the edit because it doesn't have one. – Teratix ₵ 04:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that edit needed a summary. I couldn't be blocked from editing if I reverted a major edit with no summary would I? Thank You. * MrFlyingPies23 * (Talk?) | (*Contrib*) 04:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you could be blocked from editing if you continue to revert edits merely because they don't have summaries. You need to understand reverts tend to come across as hostile and should only be used when necessary. Indiscriminate reverts are a form of disruptive editing. – Teratix ₵ 04:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does Wikipedia have this page: H:FIESNever says anything about being blocked from editing if you revert a good faith edit with no summary. It also says nothing about it's "not allowed" or any form of disruptive editing. King Regards, * MrFlyingPies23 * (Talk?) | (*Contrib*) 04:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Editors should not revert an otherwise good edit because of a missing or confusing edit summary" Fairly concise, IMO Local Potentate (talk) 07:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You also are allowed to revert an edit with no edit summary. I don't see why we are even discussing this? I still don't get the point. Kind Regards. * MrFlyingPies23 * (Talk?) | (*Contrib*) 04:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In some circumstances it is right to revert an edit (in part) because it is no edit summary. But if you go around reverting all edits without an edit summary you will get blocked.

  • The edit discussed at #Reason for reverting, please? was difficult to understand without an edit summary. So saying that it needed an edit summary was sensible.

Do you know about rollback? This is an anti-vandalism tool used by experienced editors. The edit history has Tag: Rollback. Standard rollback does not include the option to provide a custom edit summary. You are going to be very unpopular if you revert rollback just because there is no edit summary.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slowing down a bit[edit]

Please consider not using semi-automated tools for reversion until you have spent a bit more time here and have a better understanding of the norms and courtesies around reversion. That also applies to things like applying for advanced permissions and becoming a Teahouse host (as Elli mentioned). – Teratix ₵ 04:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've learnt my lesson. I think you'd be being a bit harsh if you would want me to stop using RedWarn. I'm not abusing it I just did not know about not reverting edit summaries. Please let me use them. A bit harsh, Kind Regards, MrFlyingPies23 (?Talk?) | (*Contrib*) 04:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an administrator, so it's not up to me whether you keep using RedWarn or not. I'm offering you advice in my capacity as an experienced editor who was in a reasonably similar position to you five years ago. Because I didn't fully understand how Wikipedia worked back then, I made all sorts of mistakes when I was interacting with other editors. It takes a little time to know what's going on, and there's more to it than what's "allowed" or "not allowed". The way I improved as an editor was by sticking to areas where I was competent, and that's still what I do today.
If someone doesn't fully know what they're doing, semi-automated reversion tools can let them do a lot of damage very fast. They can wrongly revert edits that improve the article and discourage new editors from continuing to contribute. That is why I suggest not using these until you have a better understanding of how Wikipedia works. If you continue what you're doing at the moment, it's likely you will continue to make mistakes and eventually reach a point where administrators will step in – not because you have bad intentions, but because you might be hurting other editors when you don't fully understand what you're doing.
It's alright to make mistakes, but if you make a lot of mistakes in a short period of time that hurt other editors, and continue to do so despite advice from other editors, then it's a problem. – Teratix ₵ 05:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to do. The only boo boo I made was reverting an edit summary. I haven't been disruptive or abusing the RedWarn. Of I get called up by another fellow editor I probably will uninstall the automated editing tools. Right now I'm going to continue and find what I'm good at. Thanks for your advice, MrFlyingPies23 (?Talk?) | (*Contrib*) 05:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do uninstall the automated editing tools. User warning templates are not a great way to engage with experienced editors. MRSC (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you didn't provide an edit summary. Kind regards, 🏴MrFlyingPies23✉(✍)🏳️ 09:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You said above, If I get called up by another fellow editor I probably will uninstall the automated editing tools. Alright, then. Please uninstall RedWarn and any other automated tools, please avoid reverting constructive edits even those without edit summaries, and please talk to people before reverting. Thank you kindly, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I learnt a couple of days ago not to revert an edit with no edit summary. @MRSC did not provide an edit summary, as it says it's a template for more experienced users. Is it just because he/she knows all the guidelines and polices she can not provide an edit summary for semi-major edits? Kind regards, 🏴MrFlyingPies23✉(✍)🏳️ 21:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted[edit]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE MrFlyingPies23✉(✍) 03:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your edit to 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove this. MrFlyingPies23✉(✍) 23:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This edit was essentially copy and paste. (copyvio report) ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrFlyingPies23&oldid=1188526747"