User talk:PeeJay/Archive 30
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Rashford honours
Hello hope you’re having a good day, I would like to ask why you feel Rashfords Europa league and Super cup defeats shouldn’t be in the honours section? He may not of won those finals but it is still an honour due to him receiving a medal for it, other players on their honours section also include defeats. Elliotstone25 (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Coming second is not an honour. – PeeJay 07:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- He is given a medal therefore it is an honour. Elliotstone25 (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't work that way. He didn't win the competition, therefore it isn't an honour. – PeeJay 12:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Other players on their honour section have had runners up put in, it’s still an achievement to get in the final no matter the result. The section is titled honours not trophy wins, you get a medal for getting to the final therefore it is an honour Elliotstone25 (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't work that way. He didn't win the competition, therefore it isn't an honour. – PeeJay 12:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- He is given a medal therefore it is an honour. Elliotstone25 (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Jonny Evans
Evans has been on the squad page of the ManUtd web with number 27 for sometime and you keep removing the number. What's your beed when United clearly gives him 27 in the squad? Jellybeard (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- As I’ve explained multiple times to multiple people, Jonny Evans is currently only on a short-term contract with United. His squad number was only valid for pre-season, and pre-season numbers are not official. Hope that helps. – PeeJay 13:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Except that's the number they registered with the premier league! :/ Govvy (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced he's actually been registered. Officially, he's not even under contract at Manchester United right now. – PeeJay 12:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- He has to have some sort of contract otherwise the club would be breaking FA rules. Regards. Govvy (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- What FA rules do you think they've broken? – PeeJay 12:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- He would have to fill in some forms under contract, be it G1, G2, G3 forms to register with the FA in order to play, then after that's done, Man U can submit player number. To have that number he would need to have an underlining contract. Per regulation; Clubs must enter into a written contract of employment with their Players on the relevant form approved by The Association. That is the rules set by the Football Association. Regards. Govvy (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Lol, I know all that. That's why I'm saying I don't think he has a number. He's not under contract, so none of that applies. They're working on getting him one, but if he's not under contract, he can't be registered, he doesn't have a number and the Man Utd and Premier League websites are therefore wrong. – PeeJay 13:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- He would have to fill in some forms under contract, be it G1, G2, G3 forms to register with the FA in order to play, then after that's done, Man U can submit player number. To have that number he would need to have an underlining contract. Per regulation; Clubs must enter into a written contract of employment with their Players on the relevant form approved by The Association. That is the rules set by the Football Association. Regards. Govvy (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- What FA rules do you think they've broken? – PeeJay 12:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- He has to have some sort of contract otherwise the club would be breaking FA rules. Regards. Govvy (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced he's actually been registered. Officially, he's not even under contract at Manchester United right now. – PeeJay 12:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Except that's the number they registered with the premier league! :/ Govvy (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Your reverting the Player sold or on loan after the season started part...
What is your issue with the bottom rows of players listed that were out on loan or sold since the season started? This is much more detailed and clearer then keeping the players that left in the same list of players still at the club. Many football season pages administer this the same way. Just reverting all the time what I did edit with a not " No thank you" is not right. You discuss something that bothers you and give us facts why you think this is unnecessary. Being a dictaror and always editing/reverting what other people add is not the right way. You seem to be doing that all the time. Jellybeard (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Why not just list them in numerical order? Readers can see those players left the club from the "Transfers" section below. – PeeJay 13:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- So twice an 11, twice a number 3 if later on we buy someone who get 3? Tell me why there are so many pages who move the players that left during the season to the bottom of the page? If you really like to see them numbered, you can add a sort function per column and you can sort by number for yourself.
- Seeing who's still at the club or not in the same table is directly very obvious and clear without needing to scroll down to check. People look at the stats mostly every week. Jellybeard (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Template: Match Report
Hi PeeJay, regarding your removal of the flag icon from {{Match report}}.
We've had this conversation before. You remained firmly opposed then, and I pointed out your opposition to imagery on match reports was unsupported at the time, and I have yet to see any change in this consensus. You cannot unilaterally decide that something cannot be on a template, especially an under construction one. If you disagree with what I've created there, then by all means seek consensus, but edit warring, and to be frank, coming back months after a discussion just to try and edit it to your preference is not the way to go about changing it. Appreciate the opportunity to discuss and seek consensus. El Dubs (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Except there's no need to use the flag. MOS:DECOR is quite clear about icons (particularly flag icons) not being used for decorative purposes. That's clearly the only reason you would add a flag in that position in that template, since any relevant flag would have already appeared further up. Hope that helps clear things up for you. This isn't about my preference, it's about Wikipedia policy. – PeeJay 07:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- MOS:DECOR doesn't apply here as it's not a decorative use. It creates a much clearer visual cue to go along with the text of the country name, just as it does with the smaller version of the flag next to country names. It meets a useful purpose. In this instance, you've incorrectly applied a wikipedia "guideline", not a policy. If you disagree, please seek consensus. I'm happy to follow a consensus if others agree with you. El Dubs (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- If the flag already appears next to the country names, what possible use could it actually serve further down the template? It's totally not necessary. If you want to include the flag, you should seek your own consensus to do so. Provide a compelling reason, because the one you've provided already is inadequate. – PeeJay 09:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'll hold off your edit war for a moment to give you a chance to explain your actions. It's really not up to you to decide what is or isn't necessary. You're welcome to make a case, but if that is disagreed with, then it is on you to find a consensus since you are the one wanting to make a change to the template. As the thing you're attempting to change was already on that work-in-progress template, then the onus on consensus for change is on you. I'm aware you have a history of wanting flags removed because you think they violate MOS:ICON, but it appears you're just trying to brute force your decision on things. Going so far as to go back to a change you were unsuccessful with months back, just to try it again. I believe this is poor form on your part. Please seek actual consensus on the change you wish to make. If I wish to apply this template to pages where such a flag is not the form, please rest assured at that moment I will seek consensus for a change. But you are editing a template used by no page, that is purely work in progress. For that reason, I didn't need consensus to initially include it. If you want to change that, by all means, find others to agree with you. El Dubs (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- The template is clearly being created with the intent of being used on pages. If it weren't, I could argue for it to be deleted based on criterion 3 listed at WP:TFD#REASONS. Regardless, there is tacit consensus for my position given that this template is obviously being designed to reflect existing practices on rugby union articles, and none of those include flags in the position you're attempting to insert them. We should also follow the example of similar sports, such as football, which also don't include flags in that position (and haven't for approximately 15 years) because it's a violation of MOS:DECOR. I don't just remove flags because I "think" they violate MOS:ICON, I remove them because they do violate MOS:ICON. Sorry you can't see that. – PeeJay 09:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Guidelines are tools, not rules. They're there to assist us, not constrain us. Relying on them in a dogmatic manner, as you appear to be doing, verges on WP:LAWYERING. Therefore, I consider your references to "violations" to be suggestions for improvement rather than definitive judgments.
- Regarding MOS:DECOR, it's my contention that the flag icons are not merely decorative but serve a functional purpose. They enhance readability and visual association, especially in a sports context. You're welcome to disagree, but that doesn't make your interpretation the definitive one. For that, we need community consensus.
- As for MOS:ICON, I believe that the flags fulfill an encyclopedic function by emphasising the inherent connection between sports teams and their respective countries.
- Having a larger title for each country makes it appropriate, in my opinion, to place the flag next to that title. I argue that this visual cue may be as recognizable—if not more so—than the country names themselves.
- I respect that you have a different view. However, it's crucial to note that you're promoting your interpretation as if it were a fixed Wikipedia rule, which it is not.
- In regards to your implication that the template somehow violates an unwritten consensus because other match reports don't use large flags:
- Enforcing a past consensus on a work-in-progress not only hinders innovation but also limits its potential for refinement and improvement. You're welcome to offer your contributions to enhance the template; however, given its formative state, discussions about consensus should be restricted to this specific template and not be influenced by existing practices on other pages.
- Scope is essential when considering consensus. For a template that is currently under development and not yet applied elsewhere, it's appropriate to confine the consensus discussion to the template's own page, ensuring it doesn't pre-emptively conform to established norms. Once template is attempted to be used on other pages, then it's appropriate to widen the scope of consensus before applying the template to existing match reports.
- Imposing a previous consensus on a work-in-progress stifles innovation and restricts its potential for improvement, as does your use of guidelines as policies. Feel free to contribute to the template as you see fit. However, since the template is still in a formative stage, any discussions of consensus should be made on their own merit, not assumed based on prior consensus.
- Given that we disagree on the template's current form, and since you are advocating for a change, the responsibility to seek community consensus for that alteration lies with you within the scope of the template page itself. El Dubs (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- You're right, guidelines are tools. However, they exist to ensure a level of uniformity and professionalism across Wikipedia. You would have to have a very good reason to ignore them, and I don't think you do. I suggest you find a consensus for such an inclusion. Cheers. – PeeJay 11:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have not ignored the MOS, I have simply interpreted it differently to you. You have made the change. This puts the onus for consensus on you. I see no reason to go out and get consensus to keep your change. El Dubs (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Then I guess you're not going to find any consensus to ever implement the template. Your innovation is not being hindered here. You are quite welcome to seek a consensus to deviate from past practices by presenting your idea to the community, but do it from a sandbox. – PeeJay 11:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe consensus will be achieved, maybe it won't. But in the meantime, if you wish for this work in progress to not have large flags, seek consensus for that change. El Dubs (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- You've still not provided any good reason to include them. Flags are already included in the {{rugbybox}} section, and there's no need to include oversized ones on the screen at the same time when the kits serve the purpose you described: demarcating the {{rugbybox}} section from the line-ups section. Why are you so obsessed with flags? – PeeJay 11:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Bringing up a good reason to include them will be a brilliant thing to bring up when you seek consensus for your change. Reverting until the other person gives up, or trying to shift the onus of consensus for change is not the way to get what you want. El Dubs (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's not how Wikipedia works. If you want to include the flags against the existing consenus for rugby articles, the onus is on you to initiate that discussion as you did here. I look forward to hearing from you at WT:RU. – PeeJay 12:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- You're right, if I want to include these flags on any rugby articles, I will seek consensus. You can certainly look forward to my eventual discussion on the matter.
- If you wish to remove them on a work in progress template that isn't used on any rugby articles however, you will need to seek consensus. El Dubs (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Works in progress, especially those not in your own userspace, are not your own personal projects. As I said before, this template is obviously being designed with the intent of being used in articles at some point; if you wish to include things in this template, now is the time to seek that consensus. Please do so at your earliest convenience, should you wish to continue working on this template. – PeeJay 12:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've expressed a willingness to engage the community, which debunks your suggestions of "personal projects". It's you that refuses to engage with the community, and instead you resort to unilaterally deciding what can be on pages and instead of seeking consensus for your changes, you revert until the issue goes away. Is it your intention to just revert this until you have imposed your views? El Dubs (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- It is my intention that you seek a consensus for the structure and content of this template. Instead of having this conversation, you could have just opened a discussion at WT:RU. The appetite for this template to be created was always lukewarm at best, so I can see why you wouldn't want to open a discussion now. You went months without editing the template, so why resurrect it now? – PeeJay 12:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Consensus achieved. While you opposed the template, myself and one other supported it. Wouldn't want to open a discussion? I already did.
- Before you try. Consensus doesn't require specific numbers, it doesn't require a vote, it doesn't require a recent decision. I would still seek consensus before applying the template to match reports. But... to make a change to the actual template after a discussion has occurred, means you are the one that needs to start a discussion and achieve a new consensus.
- You're right I went months without editing the template (luckily wikipedia supports not having a deadline). But you went years. I edited 2021-09-07, and you came back in 2023-02-07 to "resurrect" the template to make a change that you were unsuccessful at changing the first time.
- In a way, the resurrection of this template is all thanks to you coming back to edit it. So if you want to change it, back that up and start a discussion to replace the previous discussion. El Dubs (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Consensus may not require specific numbers, but if you think three people constitute a consensus, you're deluded. – PeeJay 13:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- If you don't like the engagement on the previous discussion, start a new one. I did my job, had a discussion, you were outnumbered. It should be easy for you to get a stronger consensus. It's not my job to fulfil your personal requirements for number of people. El Dubs (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I was outnumbered? I thought you said consensus didn't depend on numbers. You're arguing in circles and it's making you look silly. – PeeJay 13:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Tell me, what requirements do I need to fulfil in order for you to stop trying to force your change? A second discussion on the matter that I have to start? A consensus of 3:1? 4:1? How many people do you deem acceptable to consider it a consensus? Or is it not about people but the level of majority? Would you reject 50:49? Do you need a specific gap? If you consider that a consensus goes against MOS, will you ignore it?
- It's essential that I gather when you will allow something to happen, because if I don't meet your criteria, you've made it clear you will continue to revert any change until those criteria are met. I see the first criteria you've made is:
- A consensus of three people is not a consensus.
- I mean, I couldn't find that on WP:CON, so I assume it's your rule. I've noted your rule, but I need more details if you're to allow me to edit the page and not just revert it. El Dubs (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Considering the last discussion was two years ago, I'd advise having another one to gauge the community's opinion. WP:RU has hundreds of members (IIRC); a two-year-old discussion with three respondents is hardly a foundation for anything in 2023. – PeeJay 22:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Could you perhaps direct me to the policy that states consensus expires? Or is this to be added to the list of "PeeJay's rules" along with how many people you think is adequate for consensus? El Dubs (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. But of course I don't accept that you had a consensus in the first place. – PeeJay 07:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Consensus can change indeed, but as you can clearly read from the link, it isn't assumed to have changed by default.
- Wikipedia does not require that you "accept" consensus. Wikipedia is not yours, so we don't base consensus around what you accept. If you disagree witb prior consensus, then gather a new, stronger one. Don't try to brute force your will.El Dubs (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I never claimed Wikipedia was mine, but I think it would be prudent of you to seek further opinions. I also never claimed I don’t accept consensuses, I just don’t think the previous discussion ever reached one. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Again, instead of engaging in this unproductive dialogue, you could have spent time actually trying to improve the template or canvassing for people to accept its use in articles. But instead you decided to piss and moan about two useless flags on my talk page. – PeeJay 11:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I support those flags, so I'm hardly going to moan about them. The only one moaning about them is you. So instead of doing that, take your own advice and go seek consensus for your opinion. As you say, it would be more productive. El Dubs (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- You're moaning about their removal, and I'm sure you know that's what I meant. Don't be a smartarse. No one else has any opinion on them at all because no one even knows the template exists. So why don't you go tell people about it instead of bothering me? – PeeJay 12:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I already have. It's on you now. Stop trying to hold pages hostage until your demands are met. El Dubs (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I couldn’t care less if your template ever gets used. But if you’re not planning on getting people to support its use in actual articles, it should probably be deleted. I’ll pop over to WP:TfD soon. – PeeJay 17:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Whether it's used or not isn't the issue raised here. By all means start a discussion on the matter, that's great. The issue is that you're deciding what is and isn't consensus and have decided that your consensus of 1 person (you) is enough to remove content from a template even though it's opposed. It's very simple. The previous consensus was 2:1, if you wish to change that, then get a new consensus.
- Whether a new consensus or a TfD, I look forward to whatever discussion you bring up. El Dubs (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- User:Skeene88 said they liked the template, but then didn’t comment again. That is not a consensus for anything, just that they liked it. I raised multiple important objections, you fixed one and then nothing happened. As far as I’m concerned, the template is dead and buried. That was seemingly your opinion as well for the last two years, and all you’ve done for the last two days is revert my removal of two unnecessary flags and then complain on this page. Frankly, you’re getting tiresome. – PeeJay 21:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Now for consensus, you want comments to contain certain things, and you want the person to comment again. You're being unreasonable.
- If this is tiresome... why don't you just start a discussion and get a consensus? That would solve this. El Dubs (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Or I could just find a way to stop you posting on my talk page and treat the template (and each other) exactly as we did for the last 2 years… completely non-existent. – PeeJay 21:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oh by all means, I'm not here to harrass you. My apologies if you feel otherwise. I will simply stop responding if that's your wish. I've just been responding to you because I feel your expectation that I be the one to go get a new consensus for your benefit was wrong. I'll cease responding from now on this topic unless you ask anything of me.
- Sincerely, while I disagree with your actions here, it doesn't change that I appreciate the tremendous contributions you make to Rugby Union on Wikipedia. So I hope you have a good day. El Dubs (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Or I could just find a way to stop you posting on my talk page and treat the template (and each other) exactly as we did for the last 2 years… completely non-existent. – PeeJay 21:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- User:Skeene88 said they liked the template, but then didn’t comment again. That is not a consensus for anything, just that they liked it. I raised multiple important objections, you fixed one and then nothing happened. As far as I’m concerned, the template is dead and buried. That was seemingly your opinion as well for the last two years, and all you’ve done for the last two days is revert my removal of two unnecessary flags and then complain on this page. Frankly, you’re getting tiresome. – PeeJay 21:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I couldn’t care less if your template ever gets used. But if you’re not planning on getting people to support its use in actual articles, it should probably be deleted. I’ll pop over to WP:TfD soon. – PeeJay 17:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I already have. It's on you now. Stop trying to hold pages hostage until your demands are met. El Dubs (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- You're moaning about their removal, and I'm sure you know that's what I meant. Don't be a smartarse. No one else has any opinion on them at all because no one even knows the template exists. So why don't you go tell people about it instead of bothering me? – PeeJay 12:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I support those flags, so I'm hardly going to moan about them. The only one moaning about them is you. So instead of doing that, take your own advice and go seek consensus for your opinion. As you say, it would be more productive. El Dubs (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I never claimed Wikipedia was mine, but I think it would be prudent of you to seek further opinions. I also never claimed I don’t accept consensuses, I just don’t think the previous discussion ever reached one. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Again, instead of engaging in this unproductive dialogue, you could have spent time actually trying to improve the template or canvassing for people to accept its use in articles. But instead you decided to piss and moan about two useless flags on my talk page. – PeeJay 11:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. But of course I don't accept that you had a consensus in the first place. – PeeJay 07:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Could you perhaps direct me to the policy that states consensus expires? Or is this to be added to the list of "PeeJay's rules" along with how many people you think is adequate for consensus? El Dubs (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Considering the last discussion was two years ago, I'd advise having another one to gauge the community's opinion. WP:RU has hundreds of members (IIRC); a two-year-old discussion with three respondents is hardly a foundation for anything in 2023. – PeeJay 22:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I was outnumbered? I thought you said consensus didn't depend on numbers. You're arguing in circles and it's making you look silly. – PeeJay 13:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- If you don't like the engagement on the previous discussion, start a new one. I did my job, had a discussion, you were outnumbered. It should be easy for you to get a stronger consensus. It's not my job to fulfil your personal requirements for number of people. El Dubs (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Consensus may not require specific numbers, but if you think three people constitute a consensus, you're deluded. – PeeJay 13:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- It is my intention that you seek a consensus for the structure and content of this template. Instead of having this conversation, you could have just opened a discussion at WT:RU. The appetite for this template to be created was always lukewarm at best, so I can see why you wouldn't want to open a discussion now. You went months without editing the template, so why resurrect it now? – PeeJay 12:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've expressed a willingness to engage the community, which debunks your suggestions of "personal projects". It's you that refuses to engage with the community, and instead you resort to unilaterally deciding what can be on pages and instead of seeking consensus for your changes, you revert until the issue goes away. Is it your intention to just revert this until you have imposed your views? El Dubs (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Works in progress, especially those not in your own userspace, are not your own personal projects. As I said before, this template is obviously being designed with the intent of being used in articles at some point; if you wish to include things in this template, now is the time to seek that consensus. Please do so at your earliest convenience, should you wish to continue working on this template. – PeeJay 12:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's not how Wikipedia works. If you want to include the flags against the existing consenus for rugby articles, the onus is on you to initiate that discussion as you did here. I look forward to hearing from you at WT:RU. – PeeJay 12:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Bringing up a good reason to include them will be a brilliant thing to bring up when you seek consensus for your change. Reverting until the other person gives up, or trying to shift the onus of consensus for change is not the way to get what you want. El Dubs (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- You've still not provided any good reason to include them. Flags are already included in the {{rugbybox}} section, and there's no need to include oversized ones on the screen at the same time when the kits serve the purpose you described: demarcating the {{rugbybox}} section from the line-ups section. Why are you so obsessed with flags? – PeeJay 11:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe consensus will be achieved, maybe it won't. But in the meantime, if you wish for this work in progress to not have large flags, seek consensus for that change. El Dubs (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Then I guess you're not going to find any consensus to ever implement the template. Your innovation is not being hindered here. You are quite welcome to seek a consensus to deviate from past practices by presenting your idea to the community, but do it from a sandbox. – PeeJay 11:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have not ignored the MOS, I have simply interpreted it differently to you. You have made the change. This puts the onus for consensus on you. I see no reason to go out and get consensus to keep your change. El Dubs (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- You're right, guidelines are tools. However, they exist to ensure a level of uniformity and professionalism across Wikipedia. You would have to have a very good reason to ignore them, and I don't think you do. I suggest you find a consensus for such an inclusion. Cheers. – PeeJay 11:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- The template is clearly being created with the intent of being used on pages. If it weren't, I could argue for it to be deleted based on criterion 3 listed at WP:TFD#REASONS. Regardless, there is tacit consensus for my position given that this template is obviously being designed to reflect existing practices on rugby union articles, and none of those include flags in the position you're attempting to insert them. We should also follow the example of similar sports, such as football, which also don't include flags in that position (and haven't for approximately 15 years) because it's a violation of MOS:DECOR. I don't just remove flags because I "think" they violate MOS:ICON, I remove them because they do violate MOS:ICON. Sorry you can't see that. – PeeJay 09:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'll hold off your edit war for a moment to give you a chance to explain your actions. It's really not up to you to decide what is or isn't necessary. You're welcome to make a case, but if that is disagreed with, then it is on you to find a consensus since you are the one wanting to make a change to the template. As the thing you're attempting to change was already on that work-in-progress template, then the onus on consensus for change is on you. I'm aware you have a history of wanting flags removed because you think they violate MOS:ICON, but it appears you're just trying to brute force your decision on things. Going so far as to go back to a change you were unsuccessful with months back, just to try it again. I believe this is poor form on your part. Please seek actual consensus on the change you wish to make. If I wish to apply this template to pages where such a flag is not the form, please rest assured at that moment I will seek consensus for a change. But you are editing a template used by no page, that is purely work in progress. For that reason, I didn't need consensus to initially include it. If you want to change that, by all means, find others to agree with you. El Dubs (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- If the flag already appears next to the country names, what possible use could it actually serve further down the template? It's totally not necessary. If you want to include the flag, you should seek your own consensus to do so. Provide a compelling reason, because the one you've provided already is inadequate. – PeeJay 09:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- MOS:DECOR doesn't apply here as it's not a decorative use. It creates a much clearer visual cue to go along with the text of the country name, just as it does with the smaller version of the flag next to country names. It meets a useful purpose. In this instance, you've incorrectly applied a wikipedia "guideline", not a policy. If you disagree, please seek consensus. I'm happy to follow a consensus if others agree with you. El Dubs (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Carlos Queiroz
your article suggests that Carlos Queiroz is also Mozambican, which is totally false!
Furthermore, I find it scandalous that on the English Wikipedia, the country of birth is highlighted. A nationality is also obtained by “blood law”. Do you find it normal that it is not indicated that Anthony Lopes or Raphael Guerreiro are not Portuguese footballers or Riyad Mahrez Algerians??? these players were born in France but of Portuguese parents for Lopes and Guerreiro. They are as much Portuguese as French. They are not “naturalized” like Pepe, but Portuguese by descent (they have had Portuguese nationality since birth). On French Wikipedia, we do not proceed in this way, we respect their dual identity.
(Sorry for my English, but I had to use "google trad". I don't speak English...) FC Porto6185 (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- The article does not suggest that Queiroz is Mozambican. It says he was born in Mozambique, but that does not imply he has Mozambican nationality. – PeeJay 11:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
your act
You have to explain exactly why and according to what law you deleted my edit? Let your reason be clear. It is absolutely correct that I added the numbers of the tournaments so that the reader can see them.
reason?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_Club_Championship_and_AFC_Champions_League_records_and_statistics&diff=1174487120&oldid=1174450276 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHcc20 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Who gave you the right to use the word ridiculous for your ridiculous statements? I think your behavior is ridiculous and bullying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHcc20 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Third Opinion for dispute re: Rugby World Cup 2023 result recording
Since our current discussion is effectively at a standstill, I have decided to ask for a third-party, neutral opinion concerning the dispute. I think this is the best way of resolving the issue since it will aid in getting a substantive opinion on the topic. You demanded a third opinion, so i went and used the mechanisms of Wikipeida to ask for one, rather than listen to you waffle on about contributor(s) not content.
You can find the listing of the dispute at Third opinion - Active disagreements
67.149.160.101 (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Alignment
There is something (I don't specifically know "what") that breaks the synthax on the England v Argentina match and makes the Argentine line up looks completely out of alignment. That´s why I reduced a bit the graphic. Your revert, in this case, is quite inadequate, unless you can fix the synthax and make the table look perfectly aligned. If so, you're welcome to fix the problem, of course. But reverting a good faith change, does not help at all. Fma12 (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- I can't fix it because I don't know how the page is rendering on your device. Suffice it to say, 350px has worked for everyone on every page for several years. Btw, can we please keep the discussion to the place where I originally raised it? – PeeJay 23:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- In fact it was me who started the discussion (here) then I saw your message on my talk. I use a PC and the alignment in the Argentine line up is completely broken with 350px. Fma12 (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- BTW, I don't want to make an edit war of this. If you view the page with a PC, you'll see what I'm talking about. Fma12 (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- No edit wars here. I use a PC too and it looks absolutely fine. How big is your screen? – PeeJay 00:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have tried looking at the page on screens ranging from 13 inches to 27 inches and it looks perfectly fine at 350px. Please can you post a screenshot somewhere of how the page looks to you? – PeeJay 09:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have a 17" screen, 1280 x 720 dpi. I uploaded a screenshot here, you can check how it looks on my computer. Fma12 (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- A 17" screen should be able to handle 1920x1080 resolution, but I appreciate it may not be a completely up to date model. Nevertheless, most people view the site on 1920x1080 or higher, which is what the page is geared towards. If we need to work out a way to present things better, that might take more expert knowledge than either of us have. Until then, would you mind leaving things as they were and we'll work together to find a solution that doesn't just help you but everyone who views Wikipedia. – PeeJay 10:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have a 17" screen, 1280 x 720 dpi. I uploaded a screenshot here, you can check how it looks on my computer. Fma12 (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have tried looking at the page on screens ranging from 13 inches to 27 inches and it looks perfectly fine at 350px. Please can you post a screenshot somewhere of how the page looks to you? – PeeJay 09:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- No edit wars here. I use a PC too and it looks absolutely fine. How big is your screen? – PeeJay 00:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- BTW, I don't want to make an edit war of this. If you view the page with a PC, you'll see what I'm talking about. Fma12 (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- In fact it was me who started the discussion (here) then I saw your message on my talk. I use a PC and the alignment in the Argentine line up is completely broken with 350px. Fma12 (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Manchester United Women
Hi. You reverted all the changes I made to the staff information because they're unsourced, but the information you reverted to is also unsourced. This is because the sources would only be availiable in Linkedin etc as there is no staff pages for this information. Linkedin is not a valid source for Wiki.
Because it's been reverted now the information is again wrong with players showing as left the club in one area of the page and at the club in another. Coaching information is incorrect with staff in the wrong job or stated as there when they left 2 years prior.
I don't seen how the staff information will ever be correct if it needs an individual source for each person as articles and information just aren't reported for the womens team. 2A00:23C7:E824:8001:5958:FC59:27A5:EBAB (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Then let's remove all the staff info, and add it back when we have a source for each person from the club themselves. – PeeJay 14:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Okay I'll leave it to others then. 2A00:23C7:E824:8001:5958:FC59:27A5:EBAB (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_United_F.C._Under-21s_and_Academy This page also has more than 10 staff members with no source attached that will need to be cleared as well. 2A00:23C7:E824:8001:5958:FC59:27A5:EBAB (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Okay I'll leave it to others then. 2A00:23C7:E824:8001:5958:FC59:27A5:EBAB (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
1998 FIFA World Cup Group H: Jamaica v Croatia
Hello. I remember we had a discussion upon reliable and non-reliable sources when specifying teams' lineups. I agree that the sources I mentioned in my latest edit don't look credible for the particular match. And you reverted my edit for that very reason. But here is the question: why did you allow the previous edit to stay? The one where another Wikipedia user puts specific pitch player positions and gives no source for the information he adds to the article. That doesn't look fair. Better to change all CB for DF, RM/CM/LM for MF and RF/CF/LF for FW. None of the positions listed in the article has its proof anyway. Algorus (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Notice of Disupute resolution
This is a formal notice of a dispute you are involved in being listed for dispute resolution. The discussion to the dispute resolution can be found here on the dispute resolution notice board PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Tottenham trophy drought
I want to make it very clear I did not intend to start an edit war over this but I think that most of your reasons for removing the mention of Tottenham's trophy drought on the 2008 Football League Cup final are trivial and I can explain this easily.
1: "It dates the article"
My response: Every sports article imaginable is going to be dated eventually, given the nature of how time and sport both work. Even articles about defunct competitions and deceased sportspeople will become dated, yes maybe Tottenham will end their drought but this is speculative thinking, and doesn't really work well with how sports articles work on Wikipedia.
2: "There is no reason to mention it"
My response: Tottenham are a major club, and regardless of if you support them or not or if its really needed on the article, it is still a notable fact and if you do support them, I'm sorry but negative facts have to be included on Wikipedia. But if you don't, I see no real reason for you to remove it because of this not to mention that it is relevant to the subject matter at hand.
If there are any other reasons of note, I would love to hear them and try to respond to them, I mean no harm by any of this and I apologize if I come off as rude. SignedInteger (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members
A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 09:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
This individual who makes the 14:09 edit on 8 October definitely does not know the fact they're not allowed to edit after being indirectly informed "you are not welcome here". I'm afraid, no matter how excellent this addition is, I've done what you usually do and take it from there. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:2003 Rugby World Cup standings templates indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 17:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2003 rugby union standings templates
A tag has been placed on Category:2003 rugby union standings templates indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Ben Cliff (October 18)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ben Cliff and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.
|
Hello, PeeJay!
Having an article draft 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! Suitskvarts (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
|
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Rugby line-up graphics
Hi PeeJay, can I ask for your assistance? I'm looking for information about how to create and publish rugby line-up graphics. Can you, please, point me in the right direction? Ruggalicious (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Tbh, it's a standard template. I use a vector graphics program called Inkscape, but if you have Adobe Illustrator, I'm sure that would work too. Just download an existing one and modify the kits and names. – PeeJay 10:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
File:British & Irish Lions logo (2023).svg
See WP:FILESIZE. Please revert your edit. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's necessary. It's an SVG file, so no matter what the size is, it can be scaled up or down at will. Second, this is the size I was provided by the British & Irish Lions media team when I requested the logo for use here. They even provided it as an SVG, so I think they're probably fine with it being used as provided. – PeeJay 16:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Dobbs
You're really going to edit war over his name instead of a discussion huh? NFL.com and Vikings.com are not "databases" He is still referred to as Joshua on those sites as well as numerous other sources. Yankees10 00:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Dobbs’ profile pages on those sites are indeed databases. Furthermore, those are not the only sources that exist. Look at independent sources, you’ll see most of the ones published recently refer to him as Josh. I’m not a fucking idiot, I wouldn’t be making this change if it wasn’t supported by evidence. Maybe take a look for yourself before reverting again. – PeeJay 00:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Jesus relax. Nobody called you a "fucking idiot". I googled both names way back when Josh moved it at first and you can find numerous sources using either Josh or Joshua. You honestly can't make a definitive statement that either name is used more than the other quite frankly. Also when it comes to controversial moves, you need to wait for discussion at first before moving an article from it's original name again.-- Yankees10 00:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Did you look at the dates on the sources that came up in your Google search? Because for me, all but one that was published in the last week called him Josh. The only ones that called him Joshua were significantly older. – PeeJay 09:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Jesus relax. Nobody called you a "fucking idiot". I googled both names way back when Josh moved it at first and you can find numerous sources using either Josh or Joshua. You honestly can't make a definitive statement that either name is used more than the other quite frankly. Also when it comes to controversial moves, you need to wait for discussion at first before moving an article from it's original name again.-- Yankees10 00:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Happy birthday
 | Hungry? Here's a little snack for you on your birthday, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day, PeeJay! --Ezra Cricket (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
Happy Birthday!
 | Happy birthday! Hi PeeJay! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |  |
Hiya PeeJay, I was wondering if you saw this at AfD or not, I thought I just let you know if you wanted to try and improve the article or not, but it looks at the moment that this former Man U player might be deleted. Just thought I let you know, regards. Govvy (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
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) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Saints-Vikings
Riddled with POV? Where: the existence of snow and wind? Complete disagreement on your reasonings for overturning these edits. Unbecoming. DanStrayDogg (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:NFCN-Uniform-MIN-2006.png
Thanks for uploading File:NFCN-Uniform-MIN-2006.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) 19:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:NFCN-Uniform-MIN-2010.PNG
Thanks for uploading File:NFCN-Uniform-MIN-2010.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) 19:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Minnesota Vikings
Why are you reverting the more detailed uniforms? Harrison Krank 23:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:NFCN-Uniform-MIN-2006.png
Thanks for uploading File:NFCN-Uniform-MIN-2006.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) 18:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Old detail
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005%E2%80%9306_UEFA_Champions_League_qualifying_rounds
Here and possibly few more years to check, regarding page of "steaua", its completely wrong. hope can fix 93.143.52.223 (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- That whole situation is a mess and I'm not touching it with a ten-foot bargepole. Good luck. – PeeJay 17:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Canvassing and POV-pushing. The Banner talk 18:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
January 2024
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Aoidh (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
PeeJay (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I sought input from other editors to resolve the dispute (see here) and provided rationales for all of my edits. The other editor did not. Sorry if I did more than some arbitrary number of edits in 24 hours, but this is ridiculous. – PeeJay 23:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm sorry PeeJay, but if you think this is ridiculous that alone is reason not to unblock you. The block is well justified. You broke the three revert rule, in a content dispute, and that's a bright line you really ought to know better than than to cross, especially given your block history. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
– PeeJay 23:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think this block was hasty and reactionary—which, I admit, is understandable given the number of reversions on the page. But PeeJay's edits protected the consensus standard—and correct information—from a relentless series of arbitrary and unexplained changes. Anwegmann (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Anwegmann and PeeJay: Then they should have stopped reverting and discussed, and ultimately reported the other user as needed. Please see user:deepfriedokra/ew for more information. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I did at WT:FOOTY. The other user was clearly uninterested in discussing their changes and was blindly reverting me across a series of articles, and one of them happened to get more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour span. But I did attempt to ameliorate the situation, which is more than can be said of anyone else involved here. – PeeJay 08:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Btw, this is directed at @Sir Sputnik too. – PeeJay 08:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Asking for assistance from other editors does not create an exception to the edit warring policy that allows edit warring, nor is adhering to consensus (which per this discussion doesn't appear to be as clear-cut as first suggested) per WP:EW (
Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense.
). It's also important to note that you also violated 3RR on another page (Ineos) at the same time, and were actively edit warring on several others (including Old Trafford (area)) without any apparent attempt at discussion, which also contributed to the block. - Aoidh (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)- @Aoidh: How has User:StarryNightSky11 managed to get unblocked two days early, and then re-blocked and I'm still sitting here twiddling my thumbs? – PeeJay 15:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Probably because I've made several unblock requests to be unblocked, you made one and didn't make any more. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 15:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- @StarryNightSky11, this is not helpful. Valereee (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. I accepted the decision by Sir Sputnik. Making multiple unblock requests smacks of asking mum when dad says no. – PeeJay 15:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- @StarryNightSky11, this is not helpful. Valereee (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Probably because I've made several unblock requests to be unblocked, you made one and didn't make any more. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 15:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Aoidh: How has User:StarryNightSky11 managed to get unblocked two days early, and then re-blocked and I'm still sitting here twiddling my thumbs? – PeeJay 15:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Asking for assistance from other editors does not create an exception to the edit warring policy that allows edit warring, nor is adhering to consensus (which per this discussion doesn't appear to be as clear-cut as first suggested) per WP:EW (
- PeeJay, this isn't about happened to get more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour span. In future please take reverts to talk after the first. Trying to make sure you're playing within the rules isn't the point. Discussing is the point. Valereee (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Once you are unblocked, there is a discussion about the piping links thing at WT:FOOTY#Frank Lampard, would be good if you could contribute thoughts there rather than edit war over piped links. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- StarryNightSky11 managed to address their block, but not for long. Let me educate you.
- Please see our policy on edit warring. In the event of a content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.
- Points to ponder:
- Edit warring is wrong even if one is right.
- Any arguments in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal.
- Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior.
- To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Please tell us, in your own words, what it all means. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Is this a boilerplate message? – PeeJay 16:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's the userpage essay they pointed you at earlier. DFO responds to a lot of unblock requests, and a lot of unblock requests are for edit warring, and a lot of people blocked for EW include in their first unblock request some version of "But I was right" or "The other person was worse". Valereee (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Is this a boilerplate message? – PeeJay 16:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Once you are unblocked, there is a discussion about the piping links thing at WT:FOOTY#Frank Lampard, would be good if you could contribute thoughts there rather than edit war over piped links. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Btw, this is directed at @Sir Sputnik too. – PeeJay 08:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I did at WT:FOOTY. The other user was clearly uninterested in discussing their changes and was blindly reverting me across a series of articles, and one of them happened to get more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour span. But I did attempt to ameliorate the situation, which is more than can be said of anyone else involved here. – PeeJay 08:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metropolitan Borough of Sefton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mons.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:2023 Rugby World Cup Pool C
Template:2023 Rugby World Cup Pool C has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:2023 Rugby World Cup Pool D
Template:2023 Rugby World Cup Pool D has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
About logos
The diamonds on Ajax's socks are the Umbro badge (see here). Phailonick (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- There’s a difference. You wouldn’t leave out the shoulder stripes from an Adidas kit. – PeeJay 15:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Stripes are not logos. If logos are not acceptable, they are not across the entire kit, not just in the middle of body. Phailonick (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Always precious
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)